Valdez-Jones v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statement “that the information contained therein [was] true ‘to the best of [the affiant’s] knowledge’” did not substantially comply with the state verification statute (second alteration in original)
• trial court abused its discretion in finding the name change was sought “for an ulterior purpose” without providing a factual basis for concluding that the purpose was wrongful or fraudulent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).