president herself knew nothing of the purported addition until she arrived at the meeting and found “a paper” at each seat “that had the item on it highlighted so that we would recognize that it was an extra item that was not in our mail packet,” 5) a copy of the agenda was requested by Gardner from the assistant superintendent sometime after the meeting had transpired and before suit was filed, and 6) the copy Gardner received from the assistant superintendent contained no reference to an item “13A” or the Athletic Code of Ethics. From the foregoing circumstantial evidence, one could reasonably, but not necessarily, infer that notice of the topic in question was not disclosed prior to the meeting. See Guthrie v. Suiter, 934 S.W.2d 820, 831 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). And, because one could so infer, the
holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive holding that circumstantial evidence may create a fact issue if from the evidence a reasonable person could conclude that the existence of the ultimate fact in dispute is more reasonable than its nonexistence holding that dispute regarding material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party