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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2021 1 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 MGDgreen2 sentences2004In re S.J.G., 124 S.W.3d at 243 ; see also In re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (general purpose of the procedures established by Family Code Section 263.405 is to reduce post-judgment appellate delays, not to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction). 2004In re S.J.G., 124 S.W.3d at 243 ; see also In re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (general purpose of the procedures established by Family Code Section 263.405 is to reduce post-judgment appellate delays, not to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re SJG
green
2 sentences2004In re S.J.G., 124 S.W.3d at 243 ; see also In re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (general purpose of the procedures established by Family Code Section 263.405 is to reduce post-judgment appellate delays, not to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction). 2004In re S.J.G., 124 S.W.3d at 243 ; see also In re M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (general purpose of the procedures established by Family Code Section 263.405 is to reduce post-judgment appellate delays, not to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
cluster 289925
green
2 sentences2021“For instance, assuming that a tenant received a deficient notice, yet effectively rebutted the evidence and prepared a proper defense, dismissing the case based on subject-matter jurisdiction would fail to serve the purpose of the statutory requirement.” Id. 2021Thus, the Nealy court concluded that “an inadequate notice does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction and that a harm analysis better fulfills the purpose of HUD’s specificity requirements.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
in Re: John Wesley Patterson
green
1 sentence2018Code § 14.004(a)(1) (inmate who files affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs shall file separate affidavit or declaration “relating to previous filings” in which inmate must detail all previous actions filed pro se); Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 336 , 340 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (requirement of filing inmate’s list of previous filings generally applies to appeals brought in appellate court on or after January 2012).3 Relying on Hickman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, they assert that Texas courts of appeals consistently dismiss cases in whi | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sherman v. Bruton
green
1 sentence1989Id. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Taylor v. Sellers
green
1 sentence1973Taylor v. Sellers, 348 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1961, no writ) ; Landis v. W. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.