provides evidence of diminished market value. Even taking into account “East Texas vernacular,” as the court of appeals did, William Justiss’s testimony is speculative. He never stated his familiarity with market values, and his passing reference to “what the price of land is bringing” is not enough. His testimony provides only his guess as to his property’s diminu- • tion in value, and such speculation will not support a judg cussed a 2001 sale of nearby property, that reflects only their property’s value after the nuisance, not how much the value had changed — á necessary element of permanent nuisance damages. We conclude that the landowners’ bare conclusions provide no evidence of the damage caused by the nuisance. See City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>). Joe Donald Mashburn provided the most detail,
holding that bare psychiatric expert opinion of potential danger to others insufficient to support commitment holding that a complaints bare assertions alone were insufficient for certification holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings holding that bare baseless opinions will not support a judgment holding bare allegation of social friendship insufficient