Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2022 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sweed v. City of El Pasogreen2 sentences2021See Sweed v. City of El Paso, 139 S.W.3d 450 , 454–55 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2004, no pet.) (McClure, J., concurring) (“[I]t is fundamentally unfair to order Sweed to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing, ignore his request to appear at the hearing either telephonically or by videoconference technology, and then dismiss his case for the sole reason that he failed to appear at the mandatory hearing.”). 2007See Sweed, 139 S.W.3d at 454-55 (McClure, J., concurring) ("[I]t is fundamentally unfair to order Sweed to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing, ignore his request to appear at the hearing either telephonically or by videoconference technology, and then dismiss his case for the sole reason that he failed to appear at the mandatory hearing."); Boulden, 133 S.W.3d at 886-87 . | 3 | 3 |
In Re ZLTgreen1 sentence2022The trial court, however, failed to address that motion, proceeded to dismiss the case for 7In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003). 8Id. 9See Gamboa v. Alecio, 604 S.W.3d 513 , 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). 10In re Marriage of Bolton, 256 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). 5 Vandergriff’s failure to appear, and then failed to conduct a hearing on his timely-filed motion to reinstate. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Boltongreen1 sentence2022The trial court, however, failed to address that motion, proceeded to dismiss the case for 7In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003). 8Id. 9See Gamboa v. Alecio, 604 S.W.3d 513 , 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). 10In re Marriage of Bolton, 256 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). 5 Vandergriff’s failure to appear, and then failed to conduct a hearing on his timely-filed motion to reinstate. | 1 | 1 |
In re C.T.green1 sentence2019See In re C.T., 491 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (Guzman, J., dissenting) (noting that the legislature enacted a mandatory dismissal requirement to SAPCR proceedings filed by the State “[i]n an effort to minimize the amount of time children remain in foster-care limbo and to expedite permanency and stability”). | 1 | 1 |
Snead v. Texas State Board of Medical Examinersgreen1 sentence1994OPUC has not raised a point of error directed at Justice Powers’s arguments in favor of overruling Snead v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Exams., 753 S.W.2d 809, 810 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, no writ), and other cases that would impose a mandatory dismissal rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boulden v. Boulden
green
2 sentences2007See Sweed, 189 S.W.3d at 454-55 (McClure, J., concurring) (“[I]t is fundamentally unfair to order Sweed to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing, ignore his request to appear at the hearing either telephonically or by videoconference technology, and then dismiss his case for the sole reason that he failed to appear at the mandatory hearing.”); Boulden, 133 S.W.3d at 886-87 . 2007See Sweed, 139 S.W.3d at 454-55 (McClure, J., concurring) ("[I]t is fundamentally unfair to order Sweed to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing, ignore his request to appear at the hearing either telephonically or by videoconference technology, and then dismiss his case for the sole reason that he failed to appear at the mandatory hearing."); Boulden, 133 S.W.3d at 886-87 . | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.