In the Interest of N.K.

Texas Supreme Court

In the Interest of N.K.

89 S.W.3d 29, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1044, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 119

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 2002

DocketNo. 01-1070

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 S.W.3d 29 (In the Interest of N.K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of N.K., 89 S.W.3d 29, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1044, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 119 (Tex. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the trial court terminated the parent-child relationship between Casey K. and her children N.K. and D.T.K. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. 54 S.W.3d 499, 506. In doing so, the court of appeals reviewed the evidence under the traditional factual sufficiency standard, holding that the court would “sustain a factual sufficiency challenge only if we conclude that the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Id. at 504. Our decision today in In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, (Tex.2002), rejects that approach. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court for further proceedings. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the trial court terminated the parent-child relationship between Casey K. and her children N.K. and D.T.K. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. 54 S.W.3d 499, 506. In doing so, the court of appeals reviewed the evidence under the traditional factual sufficiency standard, holding that the court would “sustain a factual sufficiency challenge only if we conclude that the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Id. at 504. Our decision today in In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, (Tex.2002), rejects that approach. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court for further proceedings. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W.3d 29, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1044, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-nk-tex-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack