Ventling challenge (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Ventling challenge in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Johnson v. Ventlinggreen
texapp · 2004 · cited in 7 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2013
2 sentences

2013On cross-examination, Shub recanted this testimony and stated: “It looks like there’s billing that’s included, sir, yes, sir, so we can take the [$]2,250 out and give you a credit for that.” 14 instant proceeding is a collateral attack on the 1995 decree.”); Johnson I, 132 S.W.3d at 738–39 (“We hold that Ventling’s challenge to the enforceability of the decree in this proceeding amounted to an impermissible collateral attack.”).

2013See Johnson II, 2010 WL 4156459 , at *7 (“[C]ontractual defenses, such as failure of consideration, are now unavailable to Ven-tling because the instant proceeding is a collateral attack on the 1995 decree.”); Johnson I, 132 S.W.3d at 178-79 (“We hold that Ventling’s challenge to the enforceability of the decree in this proceeding amounted to an impermissible collateral attack.”).

57
Birdwell v. Birdwellgreen
texapp · 1991 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See Johnson , 132 S.W.3d at 178-79 ("We hold that Ventling's challenge to the enforceability of the decree in this proceeding amounted to an impermissible collateral attack."); Birdwell , 819 S.W.2d at 226-27 ("[I]n suits to enforce agreed judgments, parties may not raise contractual defenses because such defenses constitute impermissible collateral attacks on the prior judgments."). (9) We note also that the now-stipulated lack of a "marital estate" has no bearing on the issue of contractual alimony, which, if awarded, is not part of the "just and right" division of the marital estate in a di

2010See Johnson, 132 S.W.3d at 178-79 (“We hold that Ventling’s challenge to the enforceability of the decree in this proceeding amounted to an impermissible collateral attack.”); Birdwell, 819 S.W.2d at 226-27 (“[I]n suits to enforce agreed judgments, parties may not raise contractual defenses because such defenses constitute impermissible collateral attacks on the prior judgments.”).9 We note also that the now-stipulated lack of a “marital estate” has no bearing on the issue of contractual alimony, which, if awarded, is not part of the “just and right” division of the marital estate in a divorce

44
Toles v. Tolesgreen
texapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Reiss , 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles , 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat , 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.

2004See Reiss, 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles, 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat, 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.No Plenary Jurisdiction Neither of the parties appealed the decree or filed any motion that extended the trial court’s plenary power.

22
Reiss v. Reissgreen
tex · 2003 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Reiss , 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles , 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat , 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.

2004See Reiss, 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles, 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat, 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.No Plenary Jurisdiction Neither of the parties appealed the decree or filed any motion that extended the trial court’s plenary power.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Putegnat v. Putegnat green
texapp · 1986
2 sentences

2004See Reiss , 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles , 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat , 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.

2004See Reiss, 118 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Toles, 113 S.W.3d at 914 ; Putegnat, 706 S.W.2d at 703-04 . 3.No Plenary Jurisdiction Neither of the parties appealed the decree or filed any motion that extended the trial court’s plenary power.

22004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Fin. Code § 304.001 (3) TX § Tex. Fin. Code § 304.003 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check