interested witness rule in Texas

2015On final review, the court interested witness is not contradicted by any other held that it was clear that the trial court abused its witness, or attendant circumstances, and the same is discretion in awarding only $ 150 for attorney's fees. clear, direct and positive, and free from contradiction, Therefore, the court remanded the cause to the trial inaccuracies, and circumstances tending to cast court for a new trial on attorney's fees. suspicion thereon, it is taken as true, as a matter of law. 801 S.W.2d 880, *880 ; 1990 Tex. LEXIS 156 , **1 Evidence > ... > Testimony > Credibility of Witne

2015On final review, the court interested witness is not contradicted by any other held that it was clear that the trial court abused its witness, or attendant circumstances, and the same is discretion in awarding only $ 150 for attorney's fees. clear, direct and positive, and free from contradiction, Therefore, the court remanded the cause to the trial inaccuracies, and circumstances tending to cast court for a new trial on attorney's fees. suspicion thereon, it is taken as true, as a matter of law. 801 S.W.2d 880, *880 ; 1990 Tex. LEXIS 156 , **1 Evidence > ... > Testimony > Credibility of Witne

2009See 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990) ("It is the general rule that the testimony of an interested witness, such as a party to the suit, though not contradicted, does no more than raise a fact issue to be determined by the jury.") (citing McGilliard v. Kuhlmann , 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986); Cochran v. Wool Growers Cent.

2009See 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990) (“It is the general rule that the testimony of an interested 8 witness, such as a party to the suit, though not contradicted, does no more than raise a fact issue to be determined by the jury.”) (citing McGilliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986); Cochran v. Wool Growers Cent.

2009See id.

2009See id.

1977Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co., 391 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex.1965).

1965Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply, supra, we said that the exception to the interested witness rule, stated above (where the evidence is clear, direct, and positive, and there are no circumstances tending to discredit or impeach such testimony), is especially true where the opposite party has the means and opportunity of disproving the testimony, if it is not true, and fails to do so.

2015Anchor Casualty Co. 6 v. Bowers, 393 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.1965); Lozano v. Lozano, 2009 Tex.App.

2000Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bowers, 393 S.W.2d 168, 169-70 (Tex.1965).

2016Id. at 520. “[T]he [attorney’s] testimony is not conclusory when, as here, opposing counsel likewise has some idea of the time and effort involved and if the matter is truly in dispute, may effectively question the attorney about the reasonableness or necessity of his fee.” Ferrant, 2014 WL 1875825 , at *9.

2011They rely on Casso v. Brand , 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. 1989), which stated, “If the credibility of the affiant or deponent is likely to be a dispositive factor in the resolution of the case, then summary judgment is inappropriate.” Casso dealt with the testimony of an interested witness and the requirement that their testimony be “clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.” See Tex. R.

2003Compare Phan Son Van v. Pena, 990 S.W.2d 751, 753 (Tex. 1999) (in traditional summary-judgment practice, nonmovant must produce evidence showing fact issue if movant produces evidence showing entitlement to judgment); Allison v. Fire Ins.