The Supreme Court agreed that some of the awarded defamation damages—past and future lost income, future mental anguish, and future reputational damage—were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 621, 623-24 (Tex. 2018). But the Court found legally sufficient evidence to support the remainder of the defamation damages and concluded that because the fraud question in the jury charge incorporated the required elements of a contract, Anderson was entitled to recover benefit-of-the-bargain damages for fraudulent inducement.
We review no-evidence points by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding evidence contrary to the verdict unless a reasonable jury could not. Anderson v. Durant , 550 S.W.3d 605, 616 (Tex. 2018) ; City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 822, 827 (Tex. 2005). "More than a scintilla of evidence exists when reasonable and fair-minded people could reach different conclusions based on the evidence."
"When evidence conflicts, the jury's role is to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and reconcile any inconsistencies, and as a general proposition, the jury may believe all or any part of the testimony of any witness and disregard all or any part of the testimony of any witness." Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 616 (Tex. 2018) (cleaned up).
We did not reach the argument because of our disposition of other issues. Anderson v. Durant , 550 S.W.3d 605, 623 n.95 (Tex. 2018). One statement was by Todd, who told Peña concerning Gomez: "I heard bad quality, high mortality rates, unnecessary surgeries."
The factfinder may "believe or disbelieve a witness's testimony, in whole or in part, and [is] tasked with weighing the evidence and resolving any inconsistencies." Bell, 649 S.W.3d at 896; accord Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 616 (Tex. 2018) (stating that factfinder's role is to evaluate credibility of witnesses and reconcile any inconsistencies, and factfinder generally may "believe all or any part of the testimony of any witness and disregard all or any part of the testimony of any witness") (quoting Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 774-75 (Tex. 2003))
The fact finder’s discretion in this regard is necessary, in part, because "[i]ndividuals experience mental anguish in myriad ways, so each case is unique." Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 619 (Tex. 2018). (b) Analysis
The fact finder's discretion in this regard is necessary, in part, because "[i]ndividuals experience mental anguish in myriad ways, so each case is unique." Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 619 (Tex. 2018).
Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 618-19 (Tex. 2018) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
In her second issue on remand, Zoanni argues that "part of the judgment improperly penalizes Zoanni for her opinions." See Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 617-18 (Tex. 2018) (stating actionable defamation requires among other things, publication of false statement of fact to third party). According to Zoanni, the following eleven statements are not actionable as defamation because they are purely subjective assertions or opinions:
As a general proposition, the jury may "believe all or any part of the testimony of any witness and disregard all or any part of the testimony of any witness." Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 616 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Golden Eagle Archery, 116 S.W.3d at 774-75); see also City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819.