Case Citator › Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper

Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
135 S.W.2d 79
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
1981
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper was overruled in part. In Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, the Texas Supreme Court expressly overruled Pepper's former requirement for separate, specific negligence issues after the 1973 revision of Rule 277.
More on how this was screened

That treatment is listed below. All 28 flagged citations have been read; later courts continued to apply Pepper's rules on omitted issues and waiver of unrequested independent grounds.

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.

28 later cases cite Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper; 28 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 Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper?

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 expressly overruled Pepper's rule requiring distinct jury issues restricted to the specific acts of negligence alleged and proved.

    Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    We now expressly overrule those cases that arose before the 1973 revision of Rule 277 and which followed the mandate of Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co. requiring a submission of “each issue distinctly and separately, avoiding all intermingling” and stating “issues should be restricted to specific acts of negligence alleged and proven.” Among those cases we now overrule and disapprove are: Barclay v. C. C. Pitts Sand & Gravel Co., 387 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.1965); Kainer v. Walker, 377 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.1964); Agnew v. Coleman Elec. Coop., Inc., 153 Tex. 587, 272 S.W.2d 877 (1954); Roosth & Genecov Prod. Co., Inc. v. White, 152 Tex. 619, 262 S.W.2d 99 (1953); Solgaard v. Texas & N. O. R. R., 149 Tex. 181, 229 S.W.2d 777 (1950); City of Fort Worth v. Lee, 143 Tex. 551, 186 S.W.2d 954 (1945); Walgreen-Texas Co. v. Shivers, 137 Tex. 493, 154 S.W.2d 625 (1941); Wichita Falls & O. Ry. v. Pepper, 134 Tex. 360, 135 S.W.2d 79 (1940); Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S.W. 517 (1922); Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 241 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1951, writ ref’d); Weidmer v. Stott, 48 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Civ.App.—Ft. Worth 1932, writ ref’d).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper 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