Case Citator › Compton v. Elliott

Compton v. Elliott

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
88 S.W.2d 91
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
1989
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Compton v. Elliott's requirement to prove disputed venue facts through an ordinary evidentiary hearing was superseded by Texas's 1983 venue reforms; all 40 flagged citations have been read. The later decision identifying that change is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Its separate guidance on reviewing venue findings continued to be cited.

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.

40 later cases cite Compton v. Elliott; 40 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 Compton v. Elliott?

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Superseded by statute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 Court of Appeals recognized that the 1983 venue reforms replaced the proof procedure associated with Compton with a prima facie showing under the revised venue law.

    Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carter · Court of Appeals of Texas · filed

    Prior to the 1983 revision, the language requiring only prima facie proof did not appear in the venue statutes or the rules relating to venue. ... The Court in Collins cited Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91 (1935), for the proposition that the "plaintiff must prove the facts in the usual way [in a plea of privilege hearing], which means that the defendant is to be permitted by his evidence to dispute and contradict the plaintiffs evidence.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Compton v. Elliott 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