Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760

Mathis and Barnes own adjoining land along Lake Creek in Anderson County; Lake Creek runs through both tracts with Mathis's upstream wetlands; Barnes built an earthen road across the creek in Sept. 2006 and added two 28-inch culverts; Mathis observed rising water and encroachment onto his land starting Oct. 2006, later worsened after Barnes added a third culvert; Mathis alleged negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, and trespass for flooding and drainage damage to over 1,200 acres including wetlands; jury answered No to all claims and the trial court entered take-nothing judgment; on appeal Mathis challenged the verdict and sought judgment as a matter of law; the court of appeals reversed in part and remanded for consideration of damages and factual sufficiency issues; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Mathis conclusively prove nuisance?	Mathis asserts the evidence shows Barnes's road created a damaging nuisance.	Barnes argues the evidence was conflicting and not conclusive.	No; not conclusively proven; remand for factual sufficiency.
Did Mathis conclusively prove trespass?	Initial flooding from Barnes's road constitutes trespass.	Trespass requires damages beyond entry; damage evidence was not conclusive.	No; not conclusively proven; remand for great weight of the evidence.
What standard governs reversal when a plaintiff seeks judgment notwithstanding a contrary jury verdict?	The evidence must conclusively establish entitlement to judgment.	Jury-questions require more than contested evidence; cannot render judgment on mere dispute.	Court correctly noted the need for conclusive evidence and remanded accordingly.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (uncontested evidence may establish a fact as a matter of law)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam; standard for reversal based on conclusive evidence)
Johnson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 93 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1936) (damage presumed after trespass)
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008) (trespass includes unauthorized entry or causing entry onto land)
Glade v. Dietert, 156 Tex. 382, 295 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1956) (trespass occurs even if no damage is done)
Romero v. KPH Consol., Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2005) (measure sufficiency of evidence based on jury charge)
Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley, 284 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. 2009) (review of jury charge definitions)