Case Citator › Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
823 S.W.2d 591
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
67 of 67
Citing cases (total)
67
Treatment dates
2002
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. was superseded by statute on the duty of good faith in car dealership franchise relationships. Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc. recognized that Texas later made that duty expressly enforceable in tort.
More on how this was screened

Crim's separate rules on fiduciary relationships and fraud arising from broken contract promises continue to be applied. All 67 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed statutory change is listed below.

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.

67 later cases cite Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.; 67 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 Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.?

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Superseded by statute

  • The Texas Supreme Court recognized that a later statute made the duty of good faith and fair dealing actionable in tort for car dealership franchise parties, changing Crim's common law rule for those relationships.

    Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc. · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    We have declined to extend this common-law duty to all franchise agreements, holding that a franchisor does not exert control over its franchisee’s business comparable to the control an insurer exerts over its insured’s claim. ... However, after Crim Truck, the Legislature expressly provided a statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing among parties to a car dealership ... franchise agreement. ... And, the Legislature made this duty “actionable in tort.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 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