Case Citator › In the Interest of G. M.

In the Interest of G. M.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
596 S.W.2d 846
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
1982
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. In the Interest of G. M. remains the rule for the burden of proof in Texas parental rights termination cases, but its clear and convincing evidence requirement was held inapplicable to a trial completed before the decision. All 31 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed limit is listed below; later courts continued to apply the heightened standard in other cases.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite In the Interest of G. M.; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on In the Interest of G. M.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court held that G. M.'s clear and convincing evidence requirement did not apply to a parental rights termination trial completed before G. M. was decided.

    Ruff v. Christian Services of the Southwest · Texas Court of Appeals · filed

    In her last two points appellant contends there was error in failing to instruct the jury that its findings should be based upon the clear and convincing standard and that the evidence is insufficient to support findings on that standard. We overrule these points for two reasons: first, they were not made in the trial court and are urged initially on appeal, and, second, the clear and convincing rule was pronounced by the Texas Supreme Court after this case was tried. The instant case was tried February 4, 5 and 6, 1980. The Supreme Court opinion in In the Interest of G. M., et al., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex.1980) was delivered on March 19, 1980.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In the Interest of G. M. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace