P. 277. A proper jury instruction is one that assists the jury and is legally correct. Town of Flower Mound v. Teague, 111 S.W.3d 742, 759 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). We review the trial court’s legally correct definitions, instructions, and questions for an abuse of discretion. St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513, 525 (Tex.2003); Tex. Workers’ Comp. Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 34 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Tex.2000); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1999). When an appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the submission of a question to the jury, we review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence applying the legal sufficiency standard of review. See, e.g., T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Street, 379 S.W.2d 648,
holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection holding litigant preserves an issue on appeal where substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion in limine holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial holding party that failed to object to instruction conditioning submission of a jurys question on its answer to a question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question recognizing that objection to submission of question as based on noevidence preserves noevidence challenge for appeal