Case Citator › Fulton v. Finch

Fulton v. Finch

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
346 S.W.2d 823
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Treatment dates
1989–2008
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Fulton v. Finch's deadline for setting aside an order granting a new trial was displaced by the 1981 rewrite of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b. All 29 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Texas Supreme Court confirmed that a trial court may reconsider a new trial order while the case remains pending. Fulton's separate rule that a judgment void on its face may be disregarded continues to be applied by later courts.

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.

29 later cases cite Fulton v. Finch; 29 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 Fulton v. Finch?

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

Superseded by Statute or Rule

  • Gates held that the rewritten Rule 329b no longer imposed Fulton's former deadline for vacating a new trial order.

    Gates v. Dow Chemical Co. · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · filed

    Plainly, the rule has been changed significantly since it was addressed in 1961 by the Supreme Court in Fulton. ... A more consistent interpretation would be to consider the motion overruled after the expiration of the seventy-five day period and give the trial court the power both to grant a new trial or vacate a previous order granting a new trial within the next 30 days.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Baylor held that the amended Rule 329b eliminated the deadline that supplied Fulton's rule against setting aside a new trial order.

    In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    This ungrammatical rule stems from Fulton v. Finch, a 1961 opinion in which we held that an order granting a new trial could not be set aside after the deadline for ruling on new trial motions.9 That was because rule 329b at the time provided that all motions for new trial “must be determined” within 45 days: ... Rule 329b was amended effective January 1, 1981 to eliminate this “must be determined” provision.12 Now, the rule terminates the trial court’s plenary power 30 days after all timely motions for new trial are overruled,13 but there is no provision limiting its plenary power if such motions are granted. Under the current rules, if no judgment is signed, no plenary-power clock is ticking.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Fulton v. Finch 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