Brownlee v. Brownlee

holding that affidavits that merely state a legal conclusion are insufficient to raise a fact issue | recognizing that “[a]ffidavits consisting only of conclusions are insufficient to raise an issue of fact” | holding that affidavits that merely state a legal conclusion are insufficient to raise a fact issue | holding that affidavits that merely state a legal conclusion are insufficient to raise a fact issue | holding that statement in affidavit that “his contractual obligation had been modified” was nothing more than legal conclusion | recognizing that “[a]ffidavits consisting only of conclusions are insufficient to raise an issue of fact” | holding that statement in affidavit that "his contractual obligation had been modified" was nothing more than legal conclusion | holding that affidavits containing conclusory statements unsupported by facts are not competent summary judgment proof | holding that defendant’s asserting legal conclusion that original agreement “was modified” was insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment motion | holding that affidavits containing conclusory statements unsupported by facts are not competent summary judgment proof | holding that defendant’s asserting legal conclusion that original agreement ―was modified‖ was insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment motion | holding that, unless authorized by statute, an oath is insufficient unless its allegations are direct and unequivocal and perjury can be assigned upon it | holding that party opposing summary judgment by relying on affirmative defense “must come forward with summary judgment evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact on each element of the defense to avoid summary judgment” | holding that affidavits consisting only of conclusions are insufficient to raise issue of fact | holding that conclusory affidavit was insufficient to create fact issue and defeat summary judgment | holding that affidavit stating that contractual obligation had been modified “asserted nothing more than a legal conclusion” and “should have gone further and specified factual matters such as the time, place, and exact nature of the alleged modification” | holding that affidavit must set forth facts, not mere legal conclusions | stating that the proffer of a conclusion without factual support was not enough to stave off a directed verdict | requiring that affiant positively and unqualifiedly represent that statements in affidavit are true and within affiant's personal knowledge | stating that “an affidavit is insufficient unless the allegations contained therein are direct and unequivocal and perjury can be assigned upon it” | providing that, to be competent summary-judgment evidence, affidavit must contain specific factual bases, admissible in evidence, upon which its conclusions are based | noting that non-movant can avoid summary judgment by raising fact issue on each element of affirmative defense | recognizing testimony stating no more than a legal conclusion is conclusory and is insufficient for summary judgment purposes | recognizing testimony stating no more than a legal conclusion is conclusory and is insufficient for summary judgment purposes | stating that the proffer of a conclusion without factual support was not enough to stave off a directed verdict | stating that the proffer of a conclusion without factual support was not enough to stave off a directed verdict | stating that the proffer of a conclusion without factual support was not enough to stave off a directed verdict | holding affidavit must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, not simply assert legal conclusions | holding that a statement in an affidavit that "his contractual obligation had been modified" was nothing more than a legal conclusion and the affidavit should have gone further to specify factual matters such as the "time, place, and exact nature of the alleged modification" | holding that a statement in an affidavit that “his contractual obligation