personal knowledge requirement in Texas

2024“The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.” Stucki, 963 S.W.2d at 780 .

2018Fire Ins., 317 S.W.3d 550, 553 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“Affidavits demonstrating personal knowledge often state the affiant’s knowledge is acquired through not only the person’s position, but also through his specifically described job duties.”); Stucki v. Noble, 963 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (concluding the personal knowledge requirement may be satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated

2025App. 2002) (citing Fairow, 943 S.W.2d at 898 ) (recognizing that “[t]he perception requirement of Rule 26 701 is consistent with the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602”).

2025App. 2002) (Rule 701 incorporates the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602); Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 364 ; see also Fairow v. State, 943 S.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex. Crim.

2025This requirement “also incorporates the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602 which states that a witness may not testify to a matter unless he or she has personal knowledge of the matter.” Id. (citing Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 889 (Tex. Crim.

2015We therefore the witness's perception presumes the witness observed affirm the trial court's judgment. or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal-knowledge requirement of [R]ule 602.” Turro v. State, 950 S.W.2d 390, 403 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, All Citations pet. ref'd) (citing Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 889 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1162 , 115 S.Ct. 191 S.W.3d 185 2617, 132 L.Ed.2d 860 (1995)).

2021Porterfield argues, however, that McGrath’s assertion of personal knowledge is insufficient because it is based on her “review of the records maintained by - 20 - 04-20-00151-CV Fidelity.” But it is well-established that “an affiant’s acknowledgment of the sources from which he gathered his knowledge does not violate the personal knowledge requirement.” Id.

2018DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Tex. 2004) (holding privilege-log affidavit sufficient because “an affiant’s acknowledgment of the sources from which he gathered his knowledge does not violate the personal knowledge requirement”); Martinez v. Hays Constr., Inc., 355 S.W.3d 170, 178-79 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Ramirez, 463 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex. 2015) (discussing personal knowledge requirement and holding corporate representative can gather knowledge from other corporate sources); Asshauer v. Glimcher Realty Trust, 2

2025This requirement “also incorporates the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602 which states that a witness may not testify to a matter unless he or she has personal knowledge of the matter.” Id. (citing Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 889 (Tex. Crim.

2020“The perception requirement of Rule 701 is consistent with the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602.” Fairow, 943 S.W.2d at 898 ; see Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. Crim.

2020The perception-based component of Rule 701 “presumes the witness observed or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal-knowledge requirement of rule 602.” Turro, 950 S.W.2d at 403 .

2019Rule 701, therefore, “presumes the witness observed or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal-knowledge requirement of [Rule of Evidence] 602.” Id. (quoting Turro v. State, 950 S.W.2d 390, 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref’d)); see also Merrill, 527 S.W.3d at 670 (noting that Rule 701 requires that lay witness “establish personal knowledge of the events from which her opinion is drawn” and that opinion “be rationally based on that knowledge”).

2018DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Tex. 2004) (holding privilege-log affidavit sufficient because “an affiant’s acknowledgment of the sources from which he gathered his knowledge does not violate the personal knowledge requirement”); Martinez v. Hays Constr., Inc., 355 S.W.3d 170, 178-79 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Ramirez, 463 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex. 2015) (discussing personal knowledge requirement and holding corporate representative can gather knowledge from other corporate sources); Asshauer v. Glimcher Realty Trust, 2

2015DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (“[A]n affiant’s acknowledgement of the sources from which he gathered his knowledge does not violate the personal knowledge requirement.”); see also Asshauer v. Glimcher Realty Trust, 228 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (finding no abuse of discretion when the trial court 7 admitted an affidavit that set out that the affiant’s personal knowledge was from her review of her “clients’ business records” and other documents executed as part of the transaction at issue in this case).

2016Grantor Trust I, 331 S.W.3d 500, 510 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2010, no pet.) (same); see Kyle v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (finding personal knowledge based on testimony that the affiant was custodian of records and a “foreclosure specialist” for the loan servicer).

2015See Kyle v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (affiant's testimony she was a foreclosure specialist and custodian of records for mortgagee sufficient to identify position and responsibilities, meeting personal knowledge requirement); Stucki v. Noble, 963 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (personal knowledge requirement satisfied where affidavit adequately described relationship between affiant and the case, permitting reasonable assumption she had personal knowledge of facts stated in her affidavit).

2015Fairow, 943 S.W.2d at 898–99; Doyle v. State, 875 S.W.2d 21, 23 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1994, no pet.).

2012Fairow goes on to say that ―[a]n opinion will satisfy the personal knowledge requirement if it is an interpretation of the witness’s objective perception of events (i.e. his own senses or experience).‖ As an example, Fairow discusses Doyle v. State, 875 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1994, no pet.), where two prison guards were allowed to testify about their observations of an inmate striking another guard.

2022LP, 527 S.W.3d 663, 670 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.)); see also Health Care Serv.

2019Rule 701, therefore, “presumes the witness observed or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal-knowledge requirement of [Rule of Evidence] 602.” Id. (quoting Turro v. State, 950 S.W.2d 390, 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref’d)); see also Merrill, 527 S.W.3d at 670 (noting that Rule 701 requires that lay witness “establish personal knowledge of the events from which her opinion is drawn” and that opinion “be rationally based on that knowledge”).

2020See Pipkin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 383 S.W.3d 655, 669 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (holding that “an affidavit does not need to specifically state that it is made on personal knowledge if the statements in the affidavit show the affiant was speaking from personal knowledge”); Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts of Am., 254 S.W.3d 689, 698 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“Stating that one is ‘personally 16 acquainted’ with the facts contained in the affidavit is sufficient to meet the personal knowledge requirement.”); Churchill v. Mayo, 224 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex. App.

2019See Cooper v. Circle Ten Counsel Boy Scouts of Am., 254 S.W.3d 689, 699 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (stating that one is “personally acquainted” with the facts contained in an affidavit is sufficient to show personal knowledge).

2015This “shows how [s]he gained personal knowledge.” See, e.g., Waite v. BancTexas-Houston, N.A., 792 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); see also Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358, 365-66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.”) (quoting Stucki v. Noble, 963 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1

2013Waite v. BancTexas-Houston, N.A., 792 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).

2025Corp. v. TBF Fin., LLC, 429 S.W.3d 125, 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (“When an affiant’s summary judgment affidavit 18 contains testimony that identifies him as a record custodian and establishes his relationship with the facts of the case in a manner sufficient to demonstrate the facts at issue, the personal knowledge requirement for summary judgment affidavits may be satisfied.”).

2018See Nat’l Health Res., 429 S.W.3d at 130 (“When an affiant’s summary judgment affidavit contains testimony that identifies him as a record custodian and establishes his relationship with the facts of the case in a manner sufficient to demonstrate the facts at issue, the personal knowledge requirement for summary judgment affidavits may be satisfied.”); see also TEX.

2025See Ryland Grp., 924 S.W.2d at 122 .

2025See Ryland Grp. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996). 5 But the affidavit here went further.

2011See Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Tex. 2004)(discussing the “hearsay within hearsay” problems raised by manufacturer’s documentation of consumer complaints, and noting that to the extent complain records were offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, such records could not be admissible under the business records exception “unless the employee making the record had personal knowledge of each [complaint]”); In re A.T., No. 02-04-00355-CV, 2006 WL 563565 , *3 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth March 9, 2006, pet. denied)(mem. op., not designated for publication)(a business rec

2011See Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Tex.2004) (discussing the “hearsay within hearsay” problems raised by manufacturer’s documentation of consumer complaints, and noting that to the extent complain records were offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, such records could not be admissible under the business records exception “unless the employee making the record had personal knowledge of each [complaint]”); In re A.T., No. 02-04-00355-CV, 2006 WL 563565 , *3 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth March 9, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (a business re

2021Rule 701, therefore, “presumes the witness observed or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal- knowledge requirement of [Rule of Evidence] 602.” Id.

2010See Bd. of Trustees of Fire & Police Retiree Health Fund v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc ., 191 S.W.3d 185, 193 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. denied) (“Rule 701’s requirement that the [lay witness’s] testimony be based on the witness’s perception presumes the witness observed or experienced the underlying facts, thus meeting the personal-knowledge requirement of [R]ule 602.”) (citations omitted).

2020See Pipkin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 383 S.W.3d 655, 669 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (holding that “an affidavit does not need to specifically state that it is made on personal knowledge if the statements in the affidavit show the affiant was speaking from personal knowledge”); Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts of Am., 254 S.W.3d 689, 698 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“Stating that one is ‘personally 16 acquainted’ with the facts contained in the affidavit is sufficient to meet the personal knowledge requirement.”); Churchill v. Mayo, 224 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex. App.

2008Churchill v. Mayo, 224 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“By stating that she is ‘personally acquainted with the facts herein stated,’ the affidavit plainly represents that it is made from her personal knowledge.”) (citing Vaughan, 792 S.W.2d at 945 for proposition that summary judgment affidavit need not recite the phrase “personal knowledge,” if affidavit clear that affiant is testifying based on personal knowledge); Merch Ctr., Inc. v. WNS, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 389, 396 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.).

2020Ctr., Inc. v. WNS, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 389, 396 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (stating that “the different terminology is nothing more than an exercise in semantics”); see also Long v. Sw.

2008Churchill v. Mayo, 224 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“By stating that she is ‘personally acquainted with the facts herein stated,’ the affidavit plainly represents that it is made from her personal knowledge.”) (citing Vaughan, 792 S.W.2d at 945 for proposition that summary judgment affidavit need not recite the phrase “personal knowledge,” if affidavit clear that affiant is testifying based on personal knowledge); Merch Ctr., Inc. v. WNS, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 389, 396 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.).

2018See Kerlin v. Arias , 274 S.W.3d 666 , 668 (Tex. 2008) ; Hudson , 2015 WL 3751634 , at *2 ; Twist , 294 S.W.3d at 260 -63 .

2017See, e.g. , Kerlin v. Arias , 274 S.W.3d 666 , 668 (Tex. 2008) ("To have probative value, an affiant 'must swear that the facts presented in the affidavit reflect his personal knowledge.' ") (citing In re E.I.

2018See Brown v. Mesa Distribs., Inc. , 414 S.W.3d 279 , 287 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ("An affidavit from a company officer claiming personal knowledge of the issue and the company's records is sufficient evidence for summary judgment."); Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 229 S.W.3d 358 , 365-66 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) ("The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in

2014See Brown v. Mesa Distribs., Inc., 414 S.W.3d 279, 287 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“An affidavit from a company officer claiming personal knowledge of the issue and the company’s records is sufficient evidence for summary judgment.”); Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358 , 365– 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in t

2016See Santos v. Guerra, 570 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex. Civ.

2016See Santos v. Guerra, 570 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex. Civ.

2007DuPont de Nemours and Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Tex.2004) (orig.proceeding); see also Grotjohn Precise Connexiones Int’l, S.A. v. JEM Fin., Inc., 12 S.W.3d 859, 866 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (affidavit that referred to a personal investigation of matter contained in affidavit, along with conversations, dealings and meetings, established affiant’s personal knowledge).

2004See Grotjohn Precise Connexiones Int’l v. JEM Fin., Inc., 12 S.W.3d 859, 866 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.).

1991LaFreniere v. Fitzgerald, 669 S.W.2d 117, 119 (Tex.1984).

1991LaFreniere v. Fitzgerald, 669 S.W.2d 117, 119 (Tex.1984).

2025“The personal knowledge requirement may be satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.” Rogers, 533 S.W.3d at 429 .

2022“The personal knowledge requirement may be satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.” Rogers v. RREF II CB Acquisitions, LLC, 533 S.W.3d 419, 429 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016, no pet.).

2018See Brown v. Mesa Distribs., Inc. , 414 S.W.3d 279 , 287 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ("An affidavit from a company officer claiming personal knowledge of the issue and the company's records is sufficient evidence for summary judgment."); Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 229 S.W.3d 358 , 365-66 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) ("The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in

2015This “shows how [s]he gained personal knowledge.” See, e.g., Waite v. BancTexas-Houston, N.A., 792 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); see also Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358, 365-66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“The personal knowledge requirement is satisfied if the affidavit sufficiently describes the relationship between the affiant and the case so that it may be reasonably assumed that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.”) (quoting Stucki v. Noble, 963 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1

2024In addition, the requirement that an opinion be rationally based on the witness’s perception is composed of two parts: “(1) the witness must establish personal knowledge of the events from which his opinion is drawn and (2) the opinion drawn must be rationally based on that knowledge.” Id. (quoting James v. State, 335 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.)). 12 Here, Pack told Ranger Hill that he gave the knife used in the offense to Ford and that Ford burned the knife and disposed of it.

2020In addition, the requirement that an opinion be rationally based on the witness’s perception is composed of two parts: “(1) the witness must establish personal knowledge of the events from which his opinion is drawn and (2) the opinion drawn must be rationally based on that knowledge.” James, 335 S.W.3d at 723 .

2020See Pipkin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 383 S.W.3d 655, 669 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (holding that “an affidavit does not need to specifically state that it is made on personal knowledge if the statements in the affidavit show the affiant was speaking from personal knowledge”); Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts of Am., 254 S.W.3d 689, 698 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“Stating that one is ‘personally 16 acquainted’ with the facts contained in the affidavit is sufficient to meet the personal knowledge requirement.”); Churchill v. Mayo, 224 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex. App.

2018“The key is whether the affidavit clearly shows the affiant is testifying from personal knowledge.” Pipkin, 383 S.W.3d at 669 .