| |
| | Mattox Opinion No. JM-815 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-15) |
 | | Pullman, 312 U.S. The court in Mireles, using language virtually identical to that in Stephens, wrote: |
 | | The district court properly invoked the abstention doctrine because it is unclear whether article 2351, s 11, alone, can be the basis for a finding of a constitutionally cognizable property interest. |
 | | The language of the statute is broad and has been construed only twice by the Texas courts, once holding that the support obligation includes 'proper care, attention, and treatment during sickness,' Monghon and Sisson v. |
| www.oag.state.tx.us /opinions/op47mattox/jm-0815.htm (2252 words) |
|