The Authors published a lengthy law-review article discussing the approach that Texas courts had taken in resolving inconsistencies between a statement in an affidavit and the affiant’s testimony. David F. Johnson, Joseph P. Regan, The Competency of the Sham Affidavit as Summary Judgment Proof in Texas, 40 St. Mary’s L.J. 205, 259 (2008). Recently, in Rivas v. Southwest Key Programs, Inc., the court considered an issue regarding a conflict between a statement in an affidavit and an entry from an official record of the Texas Workforce Commission. No. 08-14-00010-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11300 (Tex. App.—El Paso November 3, 2015, no pet. history). The court cited to the Authors’ article in deciding that the defendant had not properly preserved a complaint regarding the sham-affidavit theory. Id.
The Authors have published many legal articles, which have been cited as authority by the Texas Supreme Court at least four times: King Fisher Marine Serv., L.P. v. Tamez, 443 S.W.3d 838, (Tex. 2014) (Guzman, J., dissenting); Thota v. Young, No. 09-0079, 2012 Tex. LEXIS 389 *27 (Tex. May 11, 2012); Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646, 651 n. 12 (Tex. 2004); and Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 203 n. 82 2001). Their articles have also been cited as authority by the Texas courts of appeals located in Amarillo, El Paso (twice), Waco, Texarkana, Tyler (twice), Beaumont, and Houston 14th District (twice), a federal district court in Pennsylvania, and by McDonald and Carlson in their Texas Civil Practice treatise and William V. Dorsaneo in the Texas Litigation Guide and other various commentators in the Baylor Law Review, St. Mary’s Law Journal, South Texas Law Review, and the Tennessee Law Review.