Shamark Smith Limited Partnership, Sharon D. Marcus, and Paul J. Smith v. Martin M. Longoria, 03-14-00698-CV

Brothers Allen Chadwick Burbage (Chad) and W. Kirk Burbage (Kirk) had a long-running family dispute over ownership/control of the family funeral home and cemetery interests; Chad published accusations (website, letters, posters) alleging elder abuse, fraud, undue influence and other misconduct by Kirk.
Kirk and the Burbage Funeral Home sued Chad for defamation (statements submitted as defamatory per se); the jury found for Kirk and the funeral home and awarded large compensatory and exemplary damages; the trial court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Chad from repeating specified statements.
On appeal the court of appeals largely affirmed liability and damages (reducing exemplary damages); both parties sought review in the Texas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court addressed (1) whether Chad’s communications were protected by a qualified (common‑interest) privilege, (2) whether the jury’s large compensatory award was supported by evidence, and (3) whether the trial court’s prohibitory injunction was permissible.
The Court declined to resolve the qualified‑privilege issue because Chad failed to preserve a specific charge objection; it nonetheless held there was no evidence to support the $3.8 million compensatory award and that, because actual damages were unsupported, exemplary damages could not stand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chad)	Defendant's Argument (Kirk/Burial)	Held
Whether a qualified (common‑interest) privilege protected Chad’s communications to the Phillipses and others	Communications were within a common‑interest context (family/cemetery matters) and thus privileged	Statements were defamatory per se; privilege not established or not applicable	Not reached on the merits — Chad failed to preserve a specific objection to the charge form; error not preserved
Whether the jury’s compensatory award ($3.8M) had legally sufficient evidentiary support	Damages were reasonably estimated by Kirk (testimony about lost business/reputation justified award)	Damages were speculative: no proof of actual loss, no credible valuation, cancellations unexplained	Reversed for no evidence of actual compensatory damages; award unsupported
Whether exemplary damages could be awarded	Exemplary damages appropriate given jury finding of malice	Exemplary damages require precedente showing of actual damages	Reversed — exemplary damages require actual compensatory damages and cannot be based on nominal damages alone
Whether the injunction barring future speech was proper	Injunction necessary to prevent ongoing harm to reputation and business	Permanent prohibitory injunction impermissibly restrains speech beyond remedial scope	Affirmed reversal of injunction — permanent prohibitory injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint under Kinney v. Barnes; injunction vacated

Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (Texas Supreme Court opinion addressing privilege, evidentiary sufficiency for defamation damages, exemplary damages, and prior restraint)
Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (presumed damages in defamation require evidentiary support beyond nominal damages)
Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Ltd., 434 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2014) (evidence required to support reputation damages; CEO estimates and documentary indicators considered)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (discussion of noneconomic damages in defamation and need for reasonable evidentiary basis)
MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (where record shows only nominal damages, appellate court may render a take‑nothing judgment rather than remand)
Kinney v. Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2014) (prohibitory injunctions restraining future speech are prior restraints and are subject to strict scrutiny; removal injunctions for previously adjudicated defamatory content are distinguishable)