Court Opinion

ID: 9627212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:39:11.504826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:42.965065
License: Public Domain

TAFT, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree that assertions based merely on an expert’s review of the documents, without giving any reason why anything in those documents supported the assertions, are not conelusory. See Anderson v. Snider, 808 S.W.2d 54, 54-55 (Tex.1991) (hold*326ing that attorney’s affidavit stating he acted properly and in the best interest of his client based on his review of the original petition, his file, and the relevant and material documents filed with the court was wholly conclusory). Similarly, I disagree that an expert’s bare statement that his definition is the most easily understood and generally accepted is not conclusory based on some concept of implicit support from his expertise. I cannot find any authority supporting such a proposition. It is not difficult for an opinion to avoid being conclusory. There need only be some basis or reason for it. See Jensen Const. Co. v. Dallas County, 920 S.W.2d 761, 768 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1996, writ denied) (“An expert’s opinion is conclusory and will not support summary judgment if it does not contain the basis or reasoning for the opinion.”) (citing Anderson, 808 S.W.2d at 55). Nothing like this supports the expert opinions of Davenport in this case.
Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the three assertions of Davenport were not conclusory. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.