anguish as a result of the statements.” Finally, he argues that, because the trial court’s award of actual damages cannot be sustained, the award of exemplary damages must also be overturned. “Our law presumes that statements that are defamatory per se injure the victim’s reputation and entitle him to recover general damages, including damages for loss of reputation and mental anguish.” Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 604. This means that a defendant is liable to a plaintiff for statements that are defamatory per se “even in the absence of any evidence of harm.” Downing, 348 S.W.3d at 425. “At a minimum, the plaintiff is entitled to a nominal sum, but is not limited to that amount, and the jury may choose to award damages that are ‘substantial.’ ” Id,.; see also Texas Disposal, 219 S.W.3d at 581 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Stephen was not required to
holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding for defamation per se claims plaintiff is entitled to recover at a minimum nominal damages holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under  1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages