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 1 courts 1996–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re JRPgreen2 sentences2002See In re J.R.P., 55 S.W.3d 147, 150-51 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, pet. filed) (applying Lassiter to hold that trial court had discretion not to appoint counsel until after parent requested appointment); In re M.J.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347, 355-56 (Tex. AppCSan Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (Athe timing of appointment of counsel to indigent parents appearing in opposition to termination is a matter within the trial court=s discretion@). 2002See In re J.R.P., 55 S.W.3d 147, 150-51 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, pet. filed) (applying Lassiter to hold that trial court had discretion not to appoint counsel until after parent requested appointment); In re M.J.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347, 355-56 (Tex. AppCSan Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (Athe timing of appointment of counsel to indigent parents appearing in opposition to termination is a matter within the trial court=s discretion@). | 2 | 2 |
In Re MJMLgreen2 sentences2002See In re J.R.P., 55 S.W.3d 147, 150-51 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, pet. filed) (applying Lassiter to hold that trial court had discretion not to appoint counsel until after parent requested appointment); In re M.J.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347, 355-56 (Tex. AppCSan Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (Athe timing of appointment of counsel to indigent parents appearing in opposition to termination is a matter within the trial court=s discretion@). 2002See In re J.R.P., 55 S.W.3d 147, 150-51 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, pet. filed) (applying Lassiter to hold that trial court had discretion not to appoint counsel until after parent requested appointment); In re M.J.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347, 355-56 (Tex. AppCSan Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (Athe timing of appointment of counsel to indigent parents appearing in opposition to termination is a matter within the trial court=s discretion@). | 2 | 2 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.green2 sentences2020See Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 26–27. 2020See Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 26–27. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015An additional factor further supports the conclusion US 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); that due process does not require appellate review of the Garcia State, 1/. 57 S.W.3d 436 , 440 unpreservedjury-charge errors. 2015An additional factor further supports the conclusion US 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); that due process does not require appellate review of the Garcia State, 1/. 57 S.W.3d 436 , 440 unpreservedjury-charge errors. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence2015An additional factor further supports the conclusion US 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); that due process does not require appellate review of the Garcia State, 1/. 57 S.W.3d 436 , 440 unpreservedjury-charge errors. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re JMS
green
2 sentences2001Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 , 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). [2] Accord, In the Interest of J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60 , 2001 WL 220248 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], March 1, 2001). 2001Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 , 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). [2] Accord, In the Interest of J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60 , 2001 WL 220248 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], March 1, 2001). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Boyles v. Kerr
green
1 sentence1996Lassiter’s replacement promptly obtained the nurse’s resignation. *807 Dr. Wilkenfeld’s motion for summary judgment alleged Lassiter’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred as a matter of law by Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.1993). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.
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.