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 N.C.M

271 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. App. 2008)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re N.C.M

9 Citing cases

  1. M.C. v. Dept. of Family

    300 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that mother did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact with child when she visited only six to eight times in twelve-month period

    Therefore, we conclude that M.C. has not established that Sections 263.405(b) and (i), by their terms, always has and always will operate unconstitutionally. See In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 329 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.); In re S.N., 292 S.W.3d 807, 810-11 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2009, no pet.) (not yet reported) (cases rejecting facial-unconstitutionality argument to Section 263.405). Consequently, we reject M.C.'s argument that Sections 263.405(b) and (i) are facially unconstitutional.

  2. Connor v. Deckinga

    ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-855-Y (N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that grandmother did not clearly establish constitutional right to custody of grandchildren

    To sustain an as-applied challenge to a statute, Connor must show that the statute is unconstitutional when specifically applied to her. See Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 518 n.16 (Tex. 1995); In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.). Texas has granted grandparents standing to seek custody of their grandchildren, but such suits are governed by the best-interest-of-the-child standard applicable to other suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

  3. Hudson v. State

    366 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    In such a case, the challenger is required to demonstrate only that the statute operates unconstitutionally when applied to his or her particular circumstances. Id.;In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328–29 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.).

  4. In re R.M.H.

    No. 04-11-00095-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2011)

    We have previously held this argument insufficient to show the facial unconstitutionality of section 263.405(i). See In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.). We conclude appellants have not shown section 263.405(i) is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to them.

  5. In re A.M

    312 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 18 times
    Holding 90-day deadline in section 102.006 constitutional as applied and explaining factors used to determine what process is due

    Id.; In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.). The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guards against deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the State without due process of law. U.S. CONST., amend. XIV. Similarly, Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution requires due course of law. TEX. CONST., art. I, § 19; Perry v. Del Rio, 67 S.W.3d 85, 92 (Tex. 2001).

  6. In re D.J.R

    319 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 14 times
    Refusing to consider whether statute was unconstitutional violation of separation-of-powers clause because appellant "wholly failed to show how he was harmed by its application to his case"

    An as-applied challenger is required only to demonstrate that the statute operates unconstitutionally when applied to his particular circumstances. In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.). D.R. has not identified any appellate issue he was prevented from pursuing because of the restrictions in Section 263.405. Nor has he alleged that he would have discovered more issues if more time had been allowed.

  7. In Interest of V.G.

    No. 04-08-00522-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    In an "as applied" challenge, the challenger is only required to demonstrate the statute operates unconstitutionally when applied to his particular circumstances. Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.3d 504, 518 n. 15 (Tex. 1995); In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009, no pet.). Victor has not identified any appellate issue he was prevented from pursuing because of the restrictions of section 263.405(i).

  8. In re S.N

    287 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that affidavit, family service plan, and temporary orders showing danger to physical health or safety and “ ‘substantial risk of continuing danger’ ” supported finding that children were removed under chapter 262 for neglect

    An "as applied" challenge only requires the challenger to demonstrate that the statute operates unconstitutionally when applied to the challenger's particular circumstances. See Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 518 n. 16 (Tex. 1995); In re N.C.M., 271 S.W.3d 327, 328-29 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet. h.); In re B.S.W., 87 S.W.3d 766, 771 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. denied).

  9. In re S.N

    No. 14-07-00161-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 14, 2008)

    An "as applied" challenge only requires the challenger to demonstrate that the statute operates unconstitutionally when applied to the challenger's particular circumstances. See Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 518 n. 16 (Tex. 1995); In re N.C.M., No. 04-08-00016-CV, ___ S.W.3d. ___, 2008 WL 3457028, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Aug. 13, 2008, no pet. h.); In re B.S.W., 87 S.W.3d 766, 771 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. denied).