in the Interest of S.A.P.
Texas Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Based on a unanimous jury verdict, the trial court terminated the respondents’ parent-child relationship with S.A.P., their one-year-old son. Based on an estoppel defense that was neither pleaded nor submitted to the jury, a divided court of appeals reversed. 135 S.W.3d 165, 168-71. Because estoppel was not proved conclusively, we hold it was waived, and thus reverse.
S.A.P. was born on June 8, 2001 to Scott and Rebecca Peterson. 1 Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, 2 both parents had a long history of involvement with child welfare agencies in New York and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In the Interest of J.F.C.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
- Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Boyles v. KerrTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Phillips v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- City of Hutchins v. PrasifkaTexas Supreme Court · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- In the Interest of S.A.P.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Hirschfeld Steel Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006
- In the Interest of J.M.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Williams v. County of Dallas, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2006
- B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2017
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.