<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>circumstantial evidence on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/circumstantial-evidence/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/circumstantial-evidence/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Supreme Court of Texas Reinstates Summary Judgment for H-E-B in Slip-and-Fall Case, Holding Earlier Roof Leaks Elsewhere in Store Did Not Show Constructive Knowledge of Puddle</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/</link><pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/</guid><description>The court held that a plaintiff responding to a no-evidence summary judgment motion must present some evidence of how long a dangerous condition existed, and that evidence of earlier roof leaks in other parts of a grocery store did not raise a fact issue on the grocer’s constructive knowledge of a puddle in the toy aisle. The court reversed the Thirteenth Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court Stays Order Blocking Texas’s 2025 Congressional Map for the 2026 Elections</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/</link><pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/</guid><description>In an unsigned order on an application for a stay, the Court found that Texas was likely to show the three-judge District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith and failed to draw an adverse inference from the challengers’ lack of an alternative map. The order rests on a “preliminary evaluation” and does not decide the racial-gerrymandering claim.</description></item></channel></rss>