Case Citator › Pool v. Ford Motor Co.

Pool v. Ford Motor Co.

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
715 S.W.2d 629
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
168 of 168
Citing cases (total)
2,766
Treatment dates
1990
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Pool v. Ford Motor Co. is criticized. Sells v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n criticized Pool's required format for factual-sufficiency reversals as facilitating Texas Supreme Court intrusion into the courts of appeals' exclusive fact jurisdiction.
More on how this was screened

All 168 flagged citations have been read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. Later history parentheticals describing Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel as overruling Pool were rejected after direct review because Casteel disapproved the intermediate opinion at 688 S.W.2d 879, not the cited Texas Supreme Court opinion at 715 S.W.2d 629.

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.

2,766 later cases cite Pool v. Ford Motor Co.; 168 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 Pool v. Ford Motor Co.?

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

Criticized

  • The court criticized Pool's appellate-opinion requirements as enabling the Texas Supreme Court to intrude on courts of appeals' exclusive factual-sufficiency jurisdiction.

    Sells v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n · Texas Court of Appeals, Tyler · filed

    Reading Pool and now Lofton, it appears that a majority of the current Supreme Court seem determined to exercise jurisdiction over fact issues, vested solely in the courts of appeal by Tex. Const, art. V, § 6. In any event, it seems that in *799addition to following the format of Pool, in consideration of factual insufficiency points of error, we must come up with a reversal and remand that is acceptable to the Supreme Court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pool v. Ford Motor Co. 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