law-legal-sufficiency-challenge-on-appeal | standards of review | legal-sufficiency-review | no-evidence error on
appeal | factual vs. legal sufficiency
HOUSTON CASE LAW ON LEGAL SUFFICIENCY (NO-EVIDENCE) REVIEW
We will sustain a legal sufficiency or “no-evidence” challenge if the record shows one of the following: (1) a
complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (2) rules of law or evidence bar the court from giving weight to the
only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla,
or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,
810 (Tex. 2005). In conducting a legal sufficiency review, a “court must consider evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, and indulge every reasonable inference that would support it.” Id. at 822. If there is more
than a scintilla of evidence to support the challenged finding, we must uphold it. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v.
Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). If the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is
so weak that it only creates a “mere surmise or suspicion” of the existence of the fact, “the evidence is no more
than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004)
(quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)). However, if the evidence at trial would enable
reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions, then jurors must be allowed to do so. Keller, 168 S.
W.3d at 822; see also King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). We may not substitute our
judgment for that of the trier-of-fact “so long as the evidence falls within this zone of reasonable disagreement.”
Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 822.
Shell Oil Company v. Ross (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 25, 2010)(Jenning)
(oil & gas law litigation - dispute over royalties, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud theories)
(fraudulent concealment as tolling theory, constructive notice based on public record)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jennings
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley
01-08-00713-CV Shell Oil Company, SWEPI LP d/b/a Shell Western E&P, Successor in Interest to Shell Western
E&P, Inc. v. Ralph Ross
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lamar McCorkle
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Alcala in Shell Oil Co. v. Ross (would hold that lawsuit is barred by limitations
because no evidence establishes fraudulent concealment of royalty underpayment by Shell)
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE