law-legal-factual-sufficiency-revies-bench-trial | legal-sufficiency-review | no-evidence error on appeal |
factual vs. legal sufficiency | findings of facts and conclusions of law   

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW IN APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
BASED ON BENCH TRIAL

We defer to the trial court’s properly supported factual findings.  In an appeal from a bench trial, a trial
court’s findings of fact have the same weight as a jury’s verdict so long as evidence exists in the record to
support them.  Amador v. Berrospe, 961 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ
denied).  We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting challenged findings of fact by applying the
same standards that we use in reviewing the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting jury
findings.  Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994).  We review de novo a trial court’s
conclusions of law and uphold them on appeal if the judgment can be sustained on any legal theory
supported by the evidence.  BMC Software Belg. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002); In re
Moers, 104 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
DBHL, Inc. v. Moen Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Opinion by Bland)(product liability, no
indemnity owed)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice
Jane Bland     
Panel members: Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp   
01-08-00046-CV DBHL, Inc. and Dearborn HL, S. de R.L. de C.V.
v. Moen Incorporated and Moen Sonora S.A. de C.V.   
Appeal from 295th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Hon. Tracy Christopher  
The test for legal sufficiency is “whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded
people to reach the verdict under review.”  City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005).  In
making this determination, we credit favorable evidence if a reasonable fact-finder could, and disregard
contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact-finder could not.  Id.  If the evidence falls within the zone of
reasonable disagreement, then we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.  Id. at 822.  
The fact-finder is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony.  
Id. at 819.  In reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider and weigh all of the evidence
supporting and contradicting the challenged finding and set aside the finding only if the evidence is so
weak as to make the finding clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.  Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.
1986); see Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989).



TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE