San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that—“[e]ven under a liberal construction” of the briefing requirements—appellant inadequately briefed issue where it “cite[d] no part of the record and ma[d]e no specific [legal] argument”
• concluding plaintiffs’ response was inadequate despite their argument on appeal that an affidavit attached to the response “raise[d] a fact issue as to the challenged damage element” because “they never made this assertion in their summary-judgment response”
• requiring a nonmovant responding to a no-evidence ground for summary judgment to point out evidence that raises a genuine issue of fact as to the challenged elements
• construing Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. and concluding the response was inadequate under Rule 166a(i)
• acknowledging appellate courts are required to interpret appellate briefs reasonably and liberally
• affirming a no-evidence summary judgment when the non-movant responded with a general statement that fact issues existed and referenced 650 pages of evidence, although the non-movant made more specific arguments on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).