Southtex 66 Pipeline Co., Ltd. v. Spoor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding attorney/witness did not provide facts explaining how he had expertise to interpret Texas Railroad Commission documents
• holding statement regarding pipeline company’s status with the Railroad Commission based upon “printout” from the Railroad Commission was conclusory and did not raise fact issue because it stated a conclusion and did not provide supporting facts
• “A person’s position or job responsibilities can peculiarly qualify him to have personal knowledge of facts and establish how he learned of the facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).