in question.” Fleming v. Curry, 412 S.W.3d 723, 736 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (applying definition to alleged breach of fiduciary duty by attorney); see also Custom Leasing, Inc. v. Tex. Bank & Trust Co. of Dall., 516 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Tex.1974) (outlining same definition of “material” in context of fraud). “Materiality thus centers on whether a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question.” Fleming, 412 S.W.3d at 737. Which facts are material to a transaction will vary with circumstances—a fact that is pertinent in one context may be inapposite in another—and absent a legal rule to the contrary, materiality is an issue of fact for the jury. See id. (<HOLDING>); Santanna Natural Gas Corp. v. Hamon Operating
holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries holding it is a question of fact holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact