Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re M.C.K.

NO. 14-17-00289-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 26, 2018)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re M.C.K.

5 Citing cases

  1. Key v. Key

    No. 14-23-00726-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2025)

    With the second prong, we consider whether the trial court made a reasonable decision based on the admitted evidence. See In re M.C.K., No. 14-17-00289-CV, 2018 WL 1955065, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  2. Dunn v. Garcia

    No. 01-21-00100-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that, because father's move "was authorized in the Agreed Order and anticipated at the time of its rendition, his relocation . . . does not constitute evidence of materially and substantially changed circumstances"

    ; see, e.g., In re M.C.K., No. 14-17-00289-CV, 2018 WL 1955065, at *7 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  3. O'rourke Dist. Co. v. Tex. Premier Res.

    No. 14-19-00994-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2022)

    See Tex. R. Civ. P. 90, 274; Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d at 73; In re M.C.K., No. 14-17-00289-CV, 2018 WL 1955065, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  4. In re L.B.

    No. 02-19-00345-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 9, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    See, e.g., In re M.C.K., No. 14-17-00289-CV, 2018 WL 1955065, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re K.B.L., No. 07-16-00285-CV, 2017 WL 4872784, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  5. Cantu v. Cantu

    556 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. App. 2018)   Cited 21 times
    Discussing constructive fraud and wasting

    We engage in a two-pronged inquiry when deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion: first, we consider whether the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion; and second, we consider whether the trial court erred in its application of that discretion. SeeIn re M.C.K. , No. 14-17-00289-CV, 2018 WL 1955065, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The first prong draws on our traditional standards for legal and factual sufficiency review.