Case Citator › Sanchez v. Schindler

Sanchez v. Schindler

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
651 S.W.2d 249
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1984
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. Sanchez v. Schindler has been limited: all 33 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. A Texas appeals court required proof of accompanying physical injury before allowing mental anguish damages in a wrongful death claim based on simple negligence.
More on how this was screened

Other opinions continued to recognize Sanchez's rule allowing parents to recover for a child's wrongful death.

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.

33 later cases cite Sanchez v. Schindler; 33 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 Sanchez v. Schindler?

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

  • The Dallas Court of Appeals held that Sanchez did not dispense with the physical injury requirement for mental anguish damages in a wrongful death claim based on simple negligence.

    Air Florida, Inc. v. Zondler · Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District (Dallas) · filed

    Although the Sanchez opinion does use broad and expansive language in discussing recovery of mental anguish damages, we find nothing in either the holding or the rationale of that opinion which definitely indicates a change in the former rule requiring proof of an accompanying physical injury. Indeed, the plaintiff in Sanchez did suffer an accompanying physical injury, namely, frequent neck and shoulder pains and headaches. Sanchez, 651 S.W.2d at 253 (majority opinion).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Sanchez v. Schindler 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