and noting that a jurat typically indicates “that the officer administered an oath or affirmation to the signer, who swore to or affirmed the contents of the document”). While the Government Code requires that an affidavit be sworn to, it does not require a jurat or clause stating that the writing was sworn to before the officer. Tex. Gov’t Code § 312.011(1); see Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 568 (stating that, while the statutory definition of “affidavit” requires that the affidavit be sworn to, it does not require “an authorized officer [to] attest! ] to the oath”). Similarly, Rule 166a(f) does not require that an affidavit used as evidence in a summary judgment proceeding contain an officer’s attestation to the affiant’s oath. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(f); Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 567-68 (<HOLDING>); see also Ryland Grp., Inc. v. Hood, 924
holding that in a suit on a sworn account the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments holding that the jurat is an integral part of rule 166af  which particularly refers to sworn or certified copies  referred to in an affidavit  holding that in absence of a jurat the fact that the statement was sworn to may be shown by other evidence holding sba is an integral part of federal government and is not a separate legal entity holding that an incorporated affidavit did not provide particularity because the government offered no evidence that the affidavit or any copies were ever attached to the warrant or were present at the time of the search