failure to provide substantive analysis in Texas

2025See Guimaraes v. Brann, 562 S.W.3d 521 , 537–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (failure to provide substantive analysis of issues presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); see also TEX.

2025“The failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or cite appropriate authority or the record waives a complaint on appeal.” Id. (citing 16 Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Irisson v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, No. 13-19- 00239-CV, 2020 WL 6343336 , at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi— Edinburg Oct. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant’s brief fails to contain clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations t

2026Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Cervantes- Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also In re Est. of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (stating failure to provide substantive analysis of issue presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal). 9 Aside from general and conclusory statements, the Bowens provide no substantive analysis or argument, o

2025“The failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or cite appropriate authority or the record waives a complaint on appeal.” Id. (citing 16 Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Irisson v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, No. 13-19- 00239-CV, 2020 WL 6343336 , at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi— Edinburg Oct. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant’s brief fails to contain clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations t

2026Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Cervantes- Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also In re Est. of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (stating failure to provide substantive analysis of issue presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal). 9 Aside from general and conclusory statements, the Bowens provide no substantive analysis or argument, o

2025Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also In re Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. 32 App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (failure to provide substantive analysis of issue presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal).

2024See Encinas v. Jackson, 553 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (holding appellant waived argument by “provid[ing] no citation to authority, nor appl[ying] applicable law to the facts of the case in support of her second issue”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[P]arties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific ar

2023See Encinas v. Jackson, 553 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (holding appellant waived argument by “provid[ing] no citation to authority, nor appl[ying] applicable law to the facts of the case in support of her second issue”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[P]arties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific ar

2024“An appellate court has no duty—or even right— to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error.” Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).

2023“An appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error.” Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).

2024See Encinas v. Jackson, 553 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (holding appellant waived argument by “provid[ing] no citation to authority, nor appl[ying] applicable law to the facts of the case in support of her second issue”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[P]arties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific ar

2023Hogan also requested injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction enjoining Zoanni from communicating with third parties 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[P]arties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports their contentions.”). 6 During her marriage to Hogan, Appellant went by the name of Steph

2026Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Cervantes- Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also In re Est. of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (stating failure to provide substantive analysis of issue presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal). 9 Aside from general and conclusory statements, the Bowens provide no substantive analysis or argument, o

2025Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also In re Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. 32 App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (failure to provide substantive analysis of issue presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal).

2012See Taylor v. Meador, 326 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex.App. -- El Paso 2010, no pet.); Eastin v. Dial, 288 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex.App. -- San Antonio 2009, pet. denied).

2012See Taylor v. Meador, 326 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); Eastin v. Dial, 288 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied).

2025See Guimaraes v. Brann, 562 S.W.3d 521 , 537–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (failure to provide substantive analysis of issues presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); see also TEX.

2024See Guimaraes v. Brann, 562 S.W.3d 521 , 537–38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (stating that failure to provide substantive analysis of issues presented results in waiver of complaint on appeal); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); TEX.

2018P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and concise argument for the contentions made”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).

2018P. 38.1(i) (requiring “clear and concise argument for the contentions made”); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“When appellants fail to discuss the evidence supporting their claim or apply the law to the facts, they present nothing for review.”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).

2015See Richard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2015SeeRichard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

2012See Taylor v. Meador, 326 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex.App. -- El Paso 2010, no pet.); Eastin v. Dial, 288 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex.App. -- San Antonio 2009, pet. denied).

2012See Taylor v. Meador, 326 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); Eastin v. Dial, 288 S.W.3d 491, 502 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied).

2024See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas, Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 215 (Tex. 2011).

2024Id. at 429 ; see also BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 , 574–75 (1996) (articulating three guideposts 96 by “provid[ing] no citation to authority, nor appl[ying] applicable law to the facts of the case in support of her second issue”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., 373 S.W.3d at 75 (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”) We overrule Zoanni’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the awards of past and future mental anguish and past and future loss of reputation. 2.

2024Corp. v. Landscape Design & Constr., Inc., 270 S.W.3d 328, 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see also Yazdchi v. Bank One, Tex., 177 S.W.3d 399 , 404 n.18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). 97 Estate Partners, L.P., 373 S.W.3d at 75 (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).31 Even if Zoanni had not waived her challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damage awards, she still would not prevail.

2024Corp. v. Landscape Design & Constr., Inc., 270 S.W.3d 328, 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see also Yazdchi v. Bank One, Tex., 177 S.W.3d 399 , 404 n.18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). 97 Estate Partners, L.P., 373 S.W.3d at 75 (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”).31 Even if Zoanni had not waived her challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damage awards, she still would not prevail.

2023Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex. 1998) (stating claim that award of actual damages is excessive is factual-sufficiency complaint).27 27 Zoanni’s reply is equally deficient because her sufficiency arguments do not differentiate between (1) the awards for mental anguish and injury to reputation, (2) awards for past and future loss of reputation, or (3) the awards for past and future mental anguish, and her discussion focuses on the entire amount of actual damages awarded for past and future mental anguish and past and future loss of reputation under Jury Question 10 Parts A and

2023P. 38.1(i); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); see also Patel v. Hussain, 485 S.W.3d 153, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (holding appellant who “globally challenge[d] mental anguish damages and [did] not separately challenge the jury’s award of future mental anguish damages or cite to authority relevant to future mental anguish damages” waived challenge to award of future mental anguish damages on appeal).

2023P. 38.1(i); Encinas, 553 S.W.3d at 728 (holding appellant waived argument by “provid[ing] no citation to authority, nor appl[ying] applicable law to the facts of the case in support of her second issue”); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., 373 S.W.3d at 75 (“A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue waives the complaint.”); see also Patel, 485 S.W.3d at 182 (holding appellant who “globally challenge[d] mental anguish damages and [did] not separately challenge the jury’s award of future mental anguish damages or cite to authority relevant to future mental anguish damages” waived chal

2019Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 , 184–85 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same standards as licensed attorneys).

2019See Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); see also Barham v. Turner Constr.

2014App. P. 38.1(i) (“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); see also Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928 , 931–32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (stating that our briefing requirements are not met by “merely uttering brief, conclusory statements unsupported by legal citations”; that the failure to provide substantive analysis of the legal issues results in waiver of the complaint; and that the appellant failed to meet this requirement because her brief consisted