303 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1993–2026 49 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2025APPLICABLE LAW In Holley v. Adams, the Texas Supreme Court provided the following nonexclusive list of factors for the trier of fact in a termination case to use in determining the best interest of the child: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or b 2025Applicable Law In Holley v. Adams, the Texas Supreme Court provided the following nonexclusive list of factors for the trier of fact in a termination case to use in determining the best interest of the child: (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or b | 84 | 137 |
In Re CHgreen2 sentences2003Code. § 161.001; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264-67 (Tex.2002); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25-26 (Tex.2002); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976) (promulgating a nonexclusive list of factors that may be considered when determining the best interest of the child). 2003CODE. § 161.001; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264-67 (Tex.2002); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25-26 (Tex.2002); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976) (promulgating a nonexclusive list of factors that may be considered when determining the best interest of the child). | 19 | 21 |
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 , 162 n.12 (Tex. Crim. 2022Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12. | 14 | 51 |
McQuarters v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). 2015See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). | 11 | 11 |
Tate v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. Crim. 2019The courts have formulated a nonexclusive list of factors to examine in determining whether the necessary links exist: (1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) whether the defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; (7) whether the defendant attempted to flee; (8) whether the defendant made | 8 | 9 |
Olivarez v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pets. (2) ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 4 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones v. State, 963 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). 2013Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones, 963 S.W.2d at 830 . | 6 | 6 |
Theus v. Stategreen2 sentences2023In Theus v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals set out a nonexclusive list of factors courts should use when applying Rule 609(a) to weigh the probative value of admitting a testifying witness’s prior conviction against its prejudicial effect. 845 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex. Crim. 2015Even if this Court views (as instructive) the nonexclusive list of factors courts use when applying Rule 609(a) to weigh the probative value of a conviction against its prejudicial effect as set forth in Theus v. State, 845 SW2d 874 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 22 |
Lassaint v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Muckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing Lassaint v. State, 79 S.W.3d 736 , 740–41 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2002, no pet.)). 2015Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Wright v. State, 401 S.W.3d 813 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d); Lassaint v. State, 79 S.W.3d 736 , 740–41 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). | 5 | 9 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2013However, Daubert does not require that each factor be satisfied in order for a scientific method to be reliable, but instead lays out a nonexclusive list of factors for the court to consider in order to determine whether the method is reliable. 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 2004The supreme court has identified a nonexclusive list of factors which can be considered in assessing the reliability of scientific evidence. 1 See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 720 ; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-95 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796-98 . | 5 | 6 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pets. (2) ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 4 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones v. State, 963 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). 2013Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones, 963 S.W.2d at 830 . | 5 | 5 |
Kyte v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pets. (2) ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 4 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones v. State, 963 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). 2013Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones, 963 S.W.2d at 830 . | 5 | 5 |
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2016When determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant additional time for discovery, we consider a nonexclusive list of factors: “the length of time the case has been on file, the materiality and purpose of the discovery sought, and whether the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence to obtain the discovery sought.” Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004). 2015In Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, the Texas Supreme Court set out that, when deciding whether the trial court had abused its discretion in denying a motion for continuance seeking additional time to conduct discovery, it had considered a nonexclusive list of factors which included the following: “the length of time the case has been on file, the materiality and purpose of the discovery sought, and whether the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence to obtain the discovery sought.”4 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004). 4 Regarding further discovery in his first motion for c | 4 | 7 |
Keeton v. Stategreen2 sentences1993But in Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), the Court of Criminal Appeals discussed the following nonexclusive list of factors which weighs against the legitimacy of a race-neutral explanation: 1. 1993In Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (Opinion Following Abatement), the Court enunciated a nonexclusive list of factors, any one of which, if present, tends to show that the State’s reasons are not actually supported by the record or are an impermissible pretext. | 4 | 5 |
In the Interest of E.C.R., Childgreen2 sentences2019See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013). 2019See In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. 2013). | 4 | 4 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011), aff’d, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. 2015Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011), aff’d, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
In Re DGgreen2 sentences2008Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); In re D.G., 5 S.W.3d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). 2008Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); In re D.G. , 5 S.W.3d 769, 772 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
In Re KWgreen2 sentences2013Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); K.W., 335 S.W.3d at 770 . 2011Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); In re K.W., 335 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011, no pet.). | 3 | 5 |
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc.green2 sentences2004The supreme court has identified a nonexclusive list of factors which can be considered in assessing the reliability of scientific evidence. 1 See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 720 ; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-95 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796-98 . 2004The supreme court has identified a nonexclusive list of factors which can be considered in assessing the reliability of scientific evidence. [1] See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 720 ; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-95 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796-98 . | 3 | 5 |
Low v. Henrygreen2 sentences2025See Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 n.5. 2020See Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 , 620 n.5 (Tex. 2007) (recognizing “a nonexclusive list of factors,” including “the reasonableness and necessity of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the offended person as a result of the misconduct,” to help determine the amount of sanctions); Landry’s, 566 S.W.3d at 71 . | 3 | 3 |
Richard Ryan Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Torres, 2015 WL 2250772, at *2 (citing Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12, and Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25, 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.)). 2015Torres, 466 S.W.3d at 331 -32 (citing Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n. 12, and Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25,29 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.)). | 3 | 3 |
| Snowden, Rion Phealgreen | 3 | 3 |
| EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen | 3 | 3 |
Ervin v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In Ervin v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals provided a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when analyzing a multiple-punishment claim. 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex. Crim. 2016In Ervin v. State, the court provided a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when analyzing a multiple-punishment claim. 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). | 2 | 3 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| In Re JFCgreen | 2 | 3 |
| City of San Antonio v. en Seguido, Ltd.green | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Otha Lee Mahonegreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re SMVgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Scoggins v. Trevinogreen | 2 | 2 |
| in the Interest of H.S.B., a Childgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Lippert v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Nenno v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Terrazasgreen | 2 | 2 |
Hargrove v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pets. (2) ref’d); Muckleroy v. State, 206 4 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d); Olivarez v. State, 171 S.W.3d 283, 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Kyte v. State, 944 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.); see Jones v. State, 963 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). 2013Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Muckleroy, 206 S.W.3d at 748 n.4. 4 This 4 This has been termed the “affirmative links” rule. | 1 | 10 |
Murff v. Murffgreen2 sentences2007See Murff v. Murff , 615 S.W.2d 696, 698-99 (Tex. 1981); Barnard , 133 S.W.3d at 785 . 2004Id. | 1 | 6 |
in the Interest of K.S., a Childgreen2 sentences2026Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976) (citations omitted); In re K.S., 420 S.W.3d 852, 855 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.). 2015Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); K.S., 420 S.W.3d at 855 . | 1 | 5 |
Somers v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Somers, 368 S.W.3d at 536 . 2021Somers, 368 S.W.3d at 536 . | 1 | 3 |
| Vinson v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Villarreal Lopez v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Whitsey v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Muckleroy v. State
green
2 sentences2025Muckleroy v. State, 206 S.W.3d 746 , 748 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing Lassaint v. State, 79 S.W.3d 736 , 740–41 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2002, no pet.)). 2013Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379 , 385–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Muckleroy, 206 S.W.3d at 748 n.4. 4 This 4 This has been termed the “affirmative links” rule. | 6 | 2002–2025 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2018Id. | 5 | 1997–2019 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2015Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011), aff’d, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. 2015Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011), aff’d, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 2013–2015 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2015Smith, 176 S.W.3d at 916 . 2014Smith, 176 S.W.3d at 916 . | 3 | 2014–2015 |
Wesley Jerome Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2015Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Wright v. State, 401 S.W.3d 813 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d); Lassaint v. State, 79 S.W.3d 736 , 740–41 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). 2015Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12; Wright v. State, 401 S.W.3d 813 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). | 3 | 2014–2015 |
| Poindexter v. State green | 3 | 2012–2014 |
| James v. State green | 3 | 2011–2013 |
| Davis v. Washington green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| Bigon v. State green | 2 | 2010–2012 |
| Mahone v. United States green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| In Re Guthrie green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| In Re MCF green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Worthey v. State green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| In Re CTE green | 2 | 2003–2007 |
| Rahul K. Nath, M.D. v. Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Landry's, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Ex Parte Wheeler green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Vela v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United States v. Dost green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Moore v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re NR green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Restaurant Teams International, Inc. v. MG Securities Corp. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.