evidence conclusively establishes defense in Texas

2026“Second, as other courts have held, a trial court may direct a verdict for the defendant if the plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff's cause of action.” Id.

2022Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000); Edes v. Arriaga, No. 05- 17-01278-CV, 2019 WL 2266391 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 24, 2019, no pet.) –3– (mem. op.) (“A directed verdict for a defendant may be proper in three situations: (1) when a plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery; (2) if the plaintiff either admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action; or (3) a legal principle precludes recovery.”).

2003See Villegas v. Griffin Indus., 975 S.W.2d 745, 748-49 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied); Davis v. Mathis , 846 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no writ).

2001See Villegas v. Griffin Indus., 975 S.W.2d 745, 748-49 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied); Davis v. Mathis, 846 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, no writ).

2003See Villegas v. Griffin Indus., 975 S.W.2d 745, 748-49 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied); Davis v. Mathis , 846 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no writ).

2001See Villegas v. Griffin Indus., 975 S.W.2d 745, 748-49 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied); Davis v. Mathis, 846 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, no writ).

2013“Thus, when the evidence conclusively establishes a claim, the claim may be part of the judgment, even if no jury question on the claim was submitted.” VR Elec., Inc., 276 S.W.3d at 677 .

2011See Bank of Texas , 276 S.W.3d at 677 (“[W]hen the evidence conclusively establishes a claim, the claim may be part of the judgment, even if no jury question on the claim was submitted.”).

2024See VR Elec., Inc., 276 S.W.3d at 677 (citing City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 814-15 (“Jurors are not free to reach a verdict contrary to [the] evidence; indeed uncontroverted issues need not be submitted to a jury at all.”)); cf. Longview Energy Co. v. Huff Energy Fund LP, 533 S.W.3d 866, 874 (Tex. 2017) (“uncontroverted issues do not need to be submitted to a jury”).

2014Id. (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 814-15 (Tex.2005)).

2008See Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 .

2008See Brown , 963 S.W.2d at 515 .

2006A directed verdict in favor of a defendant is proper if (1) there is no evidence of probative value to raise an issue of material fact on the question presented, see Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Crane Carrier Co., 140 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. 2004), or (2) the plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.

2006A directed verdict in favor of a defendant is proper if (1) there is no evidence of probative value to raise an issue of material fact on the question presented, see Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Crane Carrier Co. , 140 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. 2004), or (2) the plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff's cause of action.

2024Co., 522 S.W.3d 583, 597 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“A trial court properly directs a verdict for a defendant if the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.”).

2024See VR Elec., Inc., 276 S.W.3d at 677 (citing City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 814-15 (“Jurors are not free to reach a verdict contrary to [the] evidence; indeed uncontroverted issues need not be submitted to a jury at all.”)); cf. Longview Energy Co. v. Huff Energy Fund LP, 533 S.W.3d 866, 874 (Tex. 2017) (“uncontroverted issues do not need to be submitted to a jury”).

2022Mauricio v. Castro, 287 S.W.3d 476, 479 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).

2021Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001) (describing standard of review that applies to a claim the evidence conclusively establishes a claim on which the party had the burden to prove in the trial). 24See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.301(a). 17 whether the request someone sent the public entity is subject to an exception to disclosure under the Act, and then—if the entity claims it may withhold the information and if the Attorney General’s Office has not already issued a letter ruling that addressed the same information covered in the person’s request—the entity must refer the request to

2019See Prudential Ins., 29 S.W.3d at 77 (observing that directed verdict is proper when “plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery” and when “plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action”); see also Galliford, 254 S.W.3d at 459 , 462–63 (concluding that exceptions did not apply to allow subcontractor to recover under theory of quantum meruit from owner who hired contractor to construct restaurant and that trial court erred by entering judgment premised on quantum meruit).

2019Thus, Kam has not demonstrated based on a theory of quantum meruit that the county court erred when it granted directed verdict in favor of Karedia.11 Unjust Enrichment A party may recover under the cause of action of unjust enrichment when a person “has obtained a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage.” Heldenfels Bros., 832 S.W.2d at 41 ; see Galliford, 254 S.W.3d at 460 (explaining that “[u]njust enrichment is an independent cause of action” (citing HECI Expl.

2014Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1988)). 5 Qantel, 761 S.W.2d at 304 . 6 Id. 7 Id. at 303 . 6 entitled to judgment.” 8 A trial court properly directs a verdict for the defendant if either the “plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery,” or if “the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.” 9 In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment, as with a grant of a directed verdict, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against who

2014Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1988)). 5 Qantel, 761 S.W.2d at 304 . 6 Id. 7 Id. at 303 . 6 entitled to judgment.” 8 A trial court properly directs a verdict for the defendant if either the “plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery,” or if “the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.” 9 In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment, as with a grant of a directed verdict, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against who

2014Corp. v. Jacob, 902 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, writ denied) (“A tenant at will has no certain nor sure estate; the lessor may put him out at any time.”). 17 Henson v. Reddin, 358 S.W.3d 428 , 434–35 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). 18 See id. 9 present evidence raising a fact issue on each element of his conversion claim or if the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the claim. 19 We first consider whether Gruesen established a defense to the conversion claim.

2014P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164, 168 (Tex. 2009) (quoting Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996); accord In re 3 A trial court may order a directed verdict in favor of a defendant when: (1) a plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery; or (2) the plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.

2014P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164, 168 (Tex. 2009) (quoting Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996); accord In re 3 A trial court may order a directed verdict in favor of a defendant when: (1) a plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery; or (2) the plaintiff admits or the evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.

2006“Directed verdicts have also been sustained . . . where the substantive law did not as a matter of law permit a plaintiff to recover on his pleaded cause of action.” McCall v. Tana Oil & Gas Corp. , 82 S.W.3d 337, 343 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001), rev’d on other grounds , 104 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. 2003).

2004Reyna v. First Nat’l Bank, 55 S.W.3d 58, 69 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).