Opinion ID: 1987708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contextual Evidence

Text: In Justice Calvert's first situation  a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact  it is generally irrelevant whether a reviewing court considers contrary evidence. [19] If supporting evidence is absent, opposing evidence cannot change that result. But in a number of cases, the lack of supporting evidence may not appear until all the evidence is reviewed in context. For example, publications alleged to be defamatory must be viewed as a whole  including accompanying statements, headlines, pictures, and the general tenor and reputation of the source itself. [20] A court reviewing legal sufficiency cannot disregard parts of a publication, considering only false statements to support a plaintiff's verdict or only true ones to support a defense verdict. [21] Similarly, reviewing courts must construe contracts as a whole; we do not consider only the parts favoring one party and disregard the remainder, as that would render the latter meaningless. [22] Even writings executed at different times must be considered together if they pertain to the same transaction. [23] It is not just writings that reviewing courts must consider in context. For example, in reviewing intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for legal sufficiency, we consider the context and the relationship between the parties. [24] Acts that might constitute outrageous conduct when dealing with a hearing-impaired consumer [25] may be legally insufficient between business parties. [26] In our no-evidence reviews of successful claims, we have invariably reviewed not just evidence showing the conduct was outrageous, but also evidence showing that, in context, it was not. [27] More generally, evidence cannot be taken out of context in a way that makes it seem to support a verdict when in fact it never did. [28] If a witness's statement I did not do that is contrary to the jury's verdict, a reviewing court may need to disregard the whole statement, but cannot rewrite it by disregarding the middle word alone. Thus, if evidence may be legally sufficient in one context but insufficient in another, the context cannot be disregarded even if that means rendering judgment contrary to the jury's verdict. Either evidence contrary to the verdict must be defined to exclude material contextual evidence, or it must be an exception to the general rule.