Case Citator › Englander Co. v. Kennedy

Englander Co. v. Kennedy

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
428 S.W.2d 806
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
66 of 66
Citing cases (total)
66
Treatment dates
1999
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. Englander Co. v. Kennedy remains good law except where a properly requested partial reporter’s record permits review under the later Texas appellate rule. All 66 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed limitation is listed below; the other citing opinions applied Englander’s rule or did not address it.

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.

66 later cases cite Englander Co. v. Kennedy; 66 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 Englander Co. v. Kennedy?

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

  • A later Texas appellate rule permits a properly requested partial reporter’s record for a sufficiency challenge, limiting Englander’s requirement of a complete record in that setting.

    Roberts v. Roberts · Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District (El Paso) · filed

    The presumption has changed, however. In Englander Co., Inc. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.1968)(per curiam), the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint about the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence cannot be successfully raised without a complete statement of facts. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.1991)(in the absence of a complete statement of facts, it is presumed that the omitted evidence supports the judgment). New Rule 34.6(c)(4) provides that when a partial reporter's record is properly designated, "The appellate court must presume that the partial reporter's record designated by the parties constitutes the entire record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues. This presumption applies even if the statement includes a point or issue complaining of the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a specific factual finding identified in that point or issue.” The new language overrules Englander in those situations where a partial reporter’s record is properly requested.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Englander Co. v. Kennedy 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