In the Matter of the Estate of Edward R. Portillo v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “Kokkonen only requires a reasonable indication that the court has retained jurisdiction, ‘such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement’”
• noting that even though the parties had not yet formalized their agreement in writing, their “objective acts ... reflected] that an agreement had been reached”
• considering the record of post-settlement correspondence in determining meaning of term
• “The existence of a valid agreement is not diminished by the fact that the parties have yet to memorialize the agreement.”
• “[S]ummary enforcement of a settlement agreement has been deemed appropriate where no substantial dispute exists regarding the entry into and terms of an agreement.”
• “No evidentiary hearing was held in the instant case because neither party requested one.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).