Case Citator › Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.

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

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
932 F.2d 458
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
1995
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated: all 31 flagged citations have been read. In Floors Unlimited, Inc. v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., the Fifth Circuit recognized that later Texas decisions displaced Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.'s holding that an indefinite oral employment agreement terminable for cause fell within the Texas statute of frauds.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Pruitt's separate rule about binding prior panel decisions 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.

31 later cases cite Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.; 31 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 Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.?

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

Abrogated

  • The Fifth Circuit found later Texas decisions contrary to Pruitt's statute of frauds holding and allowed an indefinite oral agreement terminable for cause.

    Floors Unlimited, Inc. v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Our close examination of those subsequent Texas cases leads us to the contrary conclusion, i.e., that they are “clearly contrary” to our decisions in Falconer and Pruitt. That in turn compels us to conclude that Falconer is not a correct statement of Texas law and thus is no longer binding precedent in this Circuit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co. 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