Case Citator › City of Brownsville v. Alvarado

City of Brownsville v. Alvarado

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

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
897 S.W.2d 750
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
97 of 97
Citing cases (total)
1,246
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado remains good law: all 97 flagged citations have been read, with no adverse treatment confirmed. The reviewed opinions applied Alvarado's abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings, its requirement that evidentiary error probably cause an improper judgment, its whole-record harm inquiry, or its rule that an improper jury question may be harmless when another answer independently determines the verdict.
More on how this was screened

Nearby uses of “overruled” overwhelmingly disposed of appellate issues or described treatment of unrelated cases. Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel followed Alvarado while disapproving four different intermediate decisions, and Samedan Oil Corp. v. Intrastate Gas Gathering, Inc. discussed an argument that Casteel was limited to its facts. One withdrawn opinion produced no treatment; its live rehearing substitute continued to apply Alvarado. Three nonprecedential party briefs also cited Alvarado favorably.

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.

1,246 later cases cite City of Brownsville v. Alvarado; 97 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 City of Brownsville v. Alvarado?

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.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 97 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads City of Brownsville v. Alvarado 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