green
Positive treatment
112.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johannes B. Massar v. Pegasus Pain Management, PLLC
If a reporter’s record is filed for an appeal, implied findings may be challenged on factual and legal insufficiency grounds in the same manner “as jury findings or a trial court’s [express] findings of fact . . .” Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d at 480 , citing Sibley, 111 S.W.3d at 56 ; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hubert \Bud\" Kott v. Brian T. Miller and MK Developers L.C."
Inc., 602 S.W.3d 895 , 899 n.2 (Tex. 2020) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Marriage of Frances Gillian Thatcher and Nicolas Lee Thatcher v. the State of Texas
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pdt Holdings, Inc., and Phillip Thompson Homes, Inc. D/B/A Phillip Thompson Custom Homes v. City of Dallas and the Board of Adjustment of the City of Dallas
See BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CreateAI Holdings, Inc. F/K/A TuSimple Holdings, Inc. v. Bot Auto TX Inc.
Auth. v. Nelson, No. 05–13–00818–CV, 2015 WL 1261953 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 19, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989)). 38 ARGUMENT I.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Hooten Family Trust B Robert C. Hooten v. Marsha Ellen Collins, Trustee of the Hooten Family Trust B
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tae Hollenbeck v. Extra Space Properties Two, LLC
See BMC, 83 S.W.3d at 795 ; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of D.M., a Minor Child v. the State of Texas
Id. (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Justin Ryan Leblanc v. Michele Renee Leblanc
Ansley, 2002 WL 1991193 , at *3 (citing Guthrie v. Nat’l Homes Corp., 394 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Tex. 1965)); see also Vernco Constr., Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145, 151 (Tex. 2015) (absent a record, reviewing courts must presume the evidence supported all findings); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Danuel R. Stanger and Steven Peterson v. Derek Loetzerich, as Receiver for and on Behalf of Judgment Creditor Rita Mullins
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Zac Smith, 734 S.W.2d at 666 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Pamplin and Networth Cashflow Systems, LLC v. Kelly Stephenson, Trustee of the Coffee Time, Inc. 40 I K (PSP)
MARY’S L.J. 1099, 1159 (2019). -8- 04-21-00208-CV Nevertheless, “[w]hen the appellate record includes the reporter’s and clerk’s records, these implied findings are not conclusive and may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency in the appropriate appellate court.” BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)); accord Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weston Gaddy v. Elysa Fenenbock
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Asta Partners, LLC and Asta Gold 1, LLC v. Velumani Palaniswamy
P. 299; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Williams v. Milliger, 45 352 S.W.2d 794, 795 (Tex. App. 1961, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“It is implied in support of the judgment that the court found against the defendant on this issue since the court made no specific finding on such issue and none was requested.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
West Texas Landscape, Inc. D/B/A Taylor Landscape Co. v. Mark Meneses
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Jistel v. Tiffany Trail Owners Ass’n, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hassan Dandachli v. Active Motorwerks, Inc. and Mario Garcia
P. 299; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Williams v. Milliger, 352 S.W.2d 794, 795 (Tex. App. 1961, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“It is implied in support of the judgment that the court found against the defendant on this issue since the court made no specific finding on such issue and none was requested.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maged Gabra v. Viola Gabra
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Liberty Mut.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of S.M., E.M., A.M., and T.M., Children
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Damon Schexnider v. E-Cig Central, LLC LG Chem, Ltd. Shenzhen IMR Technology Co., Ltd. And Shenzhen Fest Technology Co., Ltd.
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. 1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Estate of Leslie Earnest Hines
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Llynda Spencer Lovejoy v. Charles Randall McWilliams
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Smith v. Hennington, 249 S.W.3d 600, 602 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. denied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fred Forshey and McCall-TL, Inc. D/B/A Lexus of Clear Lake v. Carol Zendeh Del
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Douglas v. Petroleum Wholesale, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Martha A. Delgado v. Jose Luis Delgado
Husband points out that, in these circumstances, “it is implied that the trial court made all the necessary findings to support its judgment.” Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Melanee Dagnes v. Oxford Place Apartments
Douglas v. Petroleum Wholesale, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Austex Tree Service, Inc. v. Unifirst Holdings, Inc.
Id.; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nestor Mendoza, Jr. v. Annie Marie Bazan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Bank, 893 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, writ denied) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989)); see also Secure Comm, Inc. v. Anderson, 31 S.W.3d 428, 430 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jack Zeev Yetiv v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Supply, 270 S.W.3d at 772–73 (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Epicous Adventure Travel, LLC v. Tateossian, Inc. D/B/A Social Fix Media, Alternatively Social Fix Media, and Terry Tateossian
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Zac Smith & Co., Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buck Porter v. A-1 Parts
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Lancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC
If the reporter’s record is filed on appeal, as it was here, “implied findings may be challenged on factual-and legal- insufficiency grounds in the same manner ‘as jury findings or a trial court’s [express] findings of fact.’” Id. (quoting Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Diana Jo Fletcher and Gary Whitaker, Independent Executors of the Estate of Torchy Bob Whitaker v. Geneva Mae Whitaker
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Liberty Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Lancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC
If the reporter’s record is filed on appeal, as it was here, “implied findings may be challenged on factual-and legal- –22– insufficiency grounds in the same manner ‘as jury findings or a trial court’s [express] findings of fact.’” Id. (quoting Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lloyd Walterscheid & Walterscheid Farms, LLC v. Danny Walterscheid
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Isabel Cortes and Johnny Fernandes v. Sharon Wendl as Attorney in Fact and A/N/F for Ada Edna Hardy
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); see Marchand, 83 S.W.3d at 795 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Dewayne White v. Ector County Appraisal District
Jistel v. Tiffany Trail Owners Ass’n, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 474, 479 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roger Tarrant, Denise Tarrant, Justin Tarrant and the D.A. Tarrant Irrevocable Trust v. Daniel Scarbrough
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shields Ltd. Partnership v. Bradberry
Id, (implied findings on special-appearance issue may be reviewed if the clerk’s and reporter's record are filed); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (statement of facts—now called the reporter's record—is necessary to challenge implied findings on evidentiary grounds after a non-jury trial); see also In re S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tex. 2014) (this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine factual-sufficiency evi-dentiary questions). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baxter & Associates, L.L.C. D/B/A Baxter Elevators v. D & D Elevators, Inc., David Shaw, Individually, and Donald Moncier, Individually
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Auth. v. Nelson, No. 05-13-00818-CV, 2015 WL 1261953 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 19, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of J.M., a Child
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); In re A.L.S., 338 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mobilelink SanAntonio, LLC v. PNK Wireless Communication, Inc.
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 103 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Juan Gabriel Espronceda v. Sylvia Sue Handy Espronceda
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
2005 Acura TSX v. State
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex.1989); $18,800 in U.S. Currency v. State, 961 S.W.2d 257, 261 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Semperit Technische Produkte Gesellschaft M.B.H. v. Hennessy ex rel. Smithers
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex.1989); Zac Smith & Co., Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Byron David Pearson v. Heather Pearson
BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002); Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jay Kay Bear Ltd v. Patty Martin
BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795 ; Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mehmet Turan Erkan v. Habibe Nalan Erkan
ANN. § 153.256 (West 2008)). 33 Id. at *2 (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) and Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest Of: C.E.C.
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989). 1 We note that in their appellate briefs, both parties reference documents that are attached to their briefs as appendixes but are not part of the record on appeal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Benedict Emesowum v. Milam Street Auto Storage, Inc. D/B/A Fast Tow Wrecker and Zone One Auto Storage
Douglas v. Petroleum Wholesale, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
John T. Preston and C Change Investments, LLC v. Emjo Investments, Ltd. and H.J. Von Der Goltz
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex.1989); Zac Smith & Co., 734 S.W.2d at 666 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee Ann Cholopisa v. Roy William Cholopisa
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lonnie Charles Smith v. City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, and Wichita Falls Independent School District
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989); Liberty Mut.
Charles E. ROBERSON and Roberson’s Funeral Home, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
Raymond ROBINSON, Respondent
v.
Raymond ROBINSON, Respondent
C-8250.
Texas Supreme Court.
Apr 19, 1989.
Parker Ellzey, Alice, for petitioners., Bernice Y. Shapiro, San Antonio, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 559 opinions | Published
Raymond Robinson, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Etta Moyer, filed this suit for rents against Charles E. Roberson and Roberson’s Funeral Home, Inc. (“Roberson”). After a nonjury trial, the trial court rendered judgment against Roberson. The court of appeals reformed the trial court’s judgment in part and affirmed. 761 S.W.2d 51. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Roberson brought forth a statement of facts on appeal, but did not request the trial court to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law. In the court of appeals, Roberson challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. In purporting to resolve these points, the court of appeals stated:
In determining if there is any evidence to support the judgment and implied findings of fact, we can consider only the evidence favorable to the implied findings and disregard any contrary evidence.
761 S.W.2d at 53. The court then proceeded to consider only that evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment.
In a nonjury trial, where no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed or requested, it is implied that the trial court made all the necessary findings to support its judgment. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Jefferson Constr. Co., 565 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex.1978); Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex.1975). When a statement of facts is brought forward, these implied findings may be challenged by factual sufficiency and legal sufficiency points the same as jury findings or a trial court’s findings of fact. Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex.1980); see also Seaman v. Seaman, 425 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex.1968); Bishop v. Bishop, 359 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.1962).
In this case, it is clear that the court of appeals, in applying only a no evidence standard of review, failed to consider and weigh all of the evidence, thereby failing to properly rule on Roberson’s factual sufficiency points. We conclude that this cause therefore must be remanded to that court for consideration of these points. Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d at 736.
Pursuant to Rule 133(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant Roberson’s motion for rehearing, grant the application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the cause to that court for consideration of Roberson’s factual sufficiency points.