Case Citator › Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
369 S.W.2d 331
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell was abrogated in part by Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane on the admissibility of earlier pleadings. All 45 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Courts continue to apply McCardell's separate rule requiring an objection when evidence is offered after a ruling on a motion in limine. The confirmed treatment 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.

45 later cases cite Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell; 45 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 Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell?

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

Abrogated

  • The court held that Texas's Rules of Evidence ended McCardell's requirement that an earlier pleading be inconsistent with a party's position at trial before the pleading could be admitted against that party.

    Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    Before the Rules of Evidence were promulgated, our cases required an inconsistency between the superseded pleading and the party’s position at trial. See Hartford Accident and Indent. Co. v. McCardell, 369 S.W.2d 331, 337-39 (Tex.1963); Kirk. v. Head, 137 Tex. 44,152 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.1941). But the Rules of Evidence no longer require inconsistency when it comes to admissibility of superseded pleadings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell 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