Cleveland v. Ward
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Courts continue to apply Cleveland's separate rule on dominant jurisdiction between courts hearing related suits.
30 later cases cite Cleveland v. Ward; 30 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 Cleveland v. Ward?
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 rejected Cleveland's lenient standard for when an appeal is inadequate to preclude mandamus, while leaving its dominant-jurisdiction rule intact.
Walker v. Packer · Supreme Court of Texas · filed
We therefore disapprove of Cleveland, Crane, Jampole and any other authorities to the extent that they imply that a remedy by appeal is inadequate merely because it might involve more delay or cost than mandamus.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cleveland v. Ward 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