Case Citator › Lassiter v. Bliss

Lassiter v. Bliss

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
559 S.W.2d 353
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
51 of 51
Citing cases (total)
51
Treatment dates
1989
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Lassiter v. Bliss was overruled in part on how a party requests trial court findings. All 51 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to apply its rule for reviewing judgments without findings.

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.

51 later cases cite Lassiter v. Bliss; 51 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 Lassiter v. Bliss?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Texas Supreme Court overruled Lassiter's requirement that an initial request for findings and conclusions be separately presented to the trial judge.

    Cherne Industries, Inc. v. Magallanes · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    However, after careful examination of the development and purpose of Rule 296, we feel compelled to go further and overrule Lassiter and all other decisions after 1957 which have required separate presentment of the initial request for findings and conclusions. This judicially imposed hurdle is contrary to both the spirit and plain letter of Rule 296 as it has existed since that date, and the mere longevity of the error should not now preclude its correction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lassiter v. Bliss 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