In Re Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited
32 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Walker v. Packer · Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals · St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Agbor · Meshell v. State · Sharp v. House of Lloyd, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Unless the court has rendered a final order or granted an extension under subsection (b), on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date the court rendered a temporary order appointing the department as temporary managing conservator, the court shall dismiss the suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed by the department that requests termination of the parent-child relationship or requests that the department be named conservator of the child. (b) On or before the time described by Subsection (a) for the dismissal of the suit, the court may extend the court's jurisdiction of the suit for a period stated in the extension order, but not longer than 180 days after the time described by Subsection (a), if the court has continuing jurisdiction of the suit and the appointment of the department as temporary managing conservator is in the best interest of the child.... (c) If the court grants an extension, the court shall render a final order or dismiss the suit on or before the date specified in the extension order and may not grant an additional extension.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Spring and Jimmy should have had separate court-appointed lawyers at trial. A conflict of interest prevented a single lawyer from effectively representing them both. 2. Nurse Duncum was not qualified to testify as an expert about whether the scalding was intentionally caused. 3. The evidence was legally and factually insufficient that Spring and Jimmy knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the children. 4. The evidence was legally and factually insufficient that Spring and Jimmy engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the children. 5. Evidence of Jimmy's alleged sexual misconduct and other bad acts was inadmissible. 6. There should have been specific questions asked of the jury about whether termination was in the best interest of the children. 7. The jury should have been asked to decide separately which of the two statutory grounds alleged for termination had occurred; the disjunctive charge and broad form questions precluded this. 8. The Judgment improperly failed to include specific findings of the grounds for termination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“grants an extension but does not render a final order or dismiss the suit on or before the required date for dismissal under Subsection (b), the court shall dismiss the suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.