Opinion ID: 1987708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conclusive Evidence

Text: Next, Justice Calvert noted that Texas courts conducting a no-evidence review traditionally do not disregard contrary evidence that conclusively establishes the opposite of a vital fact. [48] He argued that this is to some extent not a true no-evidence claim, as proponents may have to show not only that no evidence supports the verdict but that the opposite was proved as a matter of law. [49] There are several types of conclusive evidence. First, an appellate court conducting a legal sufficiency review cannot disregard undisputed evidence that allows of only one logical inference. [50] By definition, such evidence can be viewed in only one light, and reasonable jurors can reach only one conclusion from it. Jurors are not free to reach a verdict contrary to such evidence; [51] indeed, uncontroverted issues need not be submitted to a jury at all. [52] Reviewing legal sufficiency in such cases encompasses a general no-evidence review, because if some evidence supports the verdict then the contrary evidence was not undisputed. But the review does not stop there; the evidence must also have only one logical inference. Undisputed evidence that reasonable jurors could disbelieve has two: (1) it is true, or (2) it is not. Most often, undisputed contrary evidence becomes conclusive (and thus cannot be disregarded) when it concerns physical facts that cannot be denied. Thus, no evidence supports an impaired-access claim if it is undisputed that access remains along 90 percent of a tract's frontage. [53] Evidence that a buyer believed a product had been repaired is conclusively negated by an accompanying letter to the contrary. [54] And an insured's liability has not been determined by an actual trial if the insured did not appear, present evidence, or challenge anything presented by his opponent. [55] Undisputed contrary evidence may also become conclusive when a party admits it is true. Thus, a claimant's admission that he was aware of a dangerous premises condition is conclusive evidence he needed no warning about it. [56] Similarly, an ex-employee's admission that she obtained other employment may prove conclusively that she did not detrimentally rely on a defendant's promise to re-hire her. [57] And jurors may not find that an indictment was based on a defendant's misleading report when the district attorney admits it was his own mistake. [58] It is impossible to define precisely when undisputed evidence becomes conclusive. For example, an injured employee's return to work may prove conclusively that an injury was not total, [59] or it may not. [60] Circumstances in which a body is found may conclusively establish suicide, [61] or allow jurors to infer otherwise. [62] Evidence is conclusive only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions, [63] a matter that depends on the facts of each case. There is another category of conclusive evidence, in which the evidence is disputed. Undisputed evidence and conclusive evidence are not the same  undisputed evidence may or may not be conclusive, and conclusive evidence may or may not be undisputed. Thus, for example, in Murdock v. Murdock, we found no evidence to support a verdict establishing the defendant's paternity when blood tests conclusively proved he was not the child's father. [64] The evidence was directly disputed  the child's mother testified she had conjugal relations with no one else during the relevant time. [65] Nevertheless, we held there was no evidence to support the paternity verdict because of conclusive evidence to the contrary. [66] Similarly, in Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Compton, we found no evidence that a railroad's negligence caused an automobile to slam into the sixtieth car of a slow-moving train. [67] Again, the evidence was hotly disputed  while railroad witnesses testified that warning signs were in place at the crossing, the car's driver and a passenger testified they saw nothing, and would have been able to stop if they had. [68] Nevertheless, we held there was no evidence to support the claim because, if the driver could not see the side of a train before he hit it, he could not have seen a crossing sign either. [69] Of course, there are few instances in which disputed evidence is conclusive, and many instances in which undisputed evidence is not. As our sister court has noted, testimony by a paid informant is legally sufficient to support a conviction, even if [t]wenty nuns testify that the defendant was with them at the time, far from the scene of the crime . . . [and] [t]wenty more nuns testify that they saw the informant commit the crime. [70] But a more famous clerical hypothetical by Judge Learned Hand shows the opposite limit: If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party, when he used the words [in a contract], intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes upon them, he would still be held. . . . [71] While jurors may generally believe either sinners or saints, their discretion is limited when it is proved beyond question that an eyewitness was actually far away in prison or totally blind on the day of the crime. Proper legal-sufficiency review prevents reviewing courts from substituting their opinions on credibility for those of the jurors, but proper review also prevents jurors from substituting their opinions for undisputed truth. When evidence contrary to a verdict is conclusive, it cannot be disregarded.