No Evidence Summary Judgment Practice in Texas

Professor Elaine A. Grafton Carlson

Stanley J. Krist Distinguished Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 646-1870
ecarlson@stcl.edu

University of Texas
ND
32 ANNUAL PAGE KEETON CIVIL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 30-31, 2008

*These materials are largely excerpted from McDonald & Carlson, Texas Civil Practice, Volume
3, Chapter 28 West Publishing. Westlaw database "txcp"
 Table of Contents

No Evidence Summary Judgment Practice in Texas .......................................................... 1

Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
Burden of Proof in a No-Evidence Summary Judgment .................................................... 1
Time Constraints ................................................................................................................. 5
Form of No Evidence Summary Judgment Motion ............................................................. 8
Notice of Summary Judgment Filing and Hearing Date ................................................. 9
Time For Response ....................................................................................................... 13
Necessity of Response .................................................................................................. 16
[a] Introduction ......................................................................................................... 16
[b] When motion based solely on and directed solely to pleadings and not supported
by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other extrinsic evidence .......................... 19
[c] When motion poses only a question of law ......................................................... 22
[d] When motion supported by affidavits or other extrinsic evidence, but such
information insufficient to demonstrate the absence, or show presence, of disputed
issues of ultimate fact................................................................................................ 22
[f] Absolute necessity to file a response to a no-evidence summary judgment motion
................................................................................................................................... 24
Form of Response ......................................................................................................... 25
The no-evidence summary judgment ........................................................................ 25
Late-filed responses ...................................................................................................... 25
Summary Judgment Proof- In General ......................................................................... 27
General Requirements of Affidavits ............................................................................. 28
[a] Introduction ......................................................................................................... 28
[b] Affiant's competence to testify and personal knowledge .................................... 32
[c] Admissibility of facts stated ................................................................................ 35
[d] Attachments and reference .................................................................................. 38
[e] Expert and interested witnesses ........................................................................... 38
[f] Good faith ............................................................................................................ 43
Objections To Affidavits............................................................................................... 44
Protection when affidavits unavailable ..................................................................... 50
Evidence Other Than Affidavits ................................................................................... 52
Types of proof ........................................................................................................... 54
Determination of Summary Judgment Motion ............................................................ 63
Overview ................................................................................................................... 63
Determination of Summary Judgment Motion on basis of testimony of expert or
interested witnesses ................................................................................................... 67
Issues of credibility or weight of evidence ............................................................... 68
Appeal of Summary Judgment-Introduction ................................................................ 70
Appeal of Summary Judgment-Finality ........................................................................ 72
Motions Made After Summary Judgment Ruling ......................................................... 76
 No Evidence Summary Judgment Practice in Texas
Background

A summary judgment may be sought though a pretrial motion and is properly granted
when the evidence supports that there is no genuine issue of material fact warranting a
conventional trial on the merit and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The summary judgment motion is one of a wide variety of pretrial motions available to
the Texas litigator. It provides a means for final adjudication of an action, in whole or in
part. Thus, rather than merely providing a procedural or substantive structure to a cause
of action, the granting of a summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits and may
dispose of the case completely. Because of its significance to the outcome of the action,
and the distinctive procedures utilized, familiarity with summary judgment practice is
imperative.

Summary judgments have been a part of Texas jurisprudence for over half a century,
although the no-evidence summary judgment is relatively new to Texas jurisprudence,
available only since 1997.1 By its adoption, Texas practice has taken a marked departure
and is now, in the main, adopting the federal approach to summary judgment, effectively
allowing a "directed verdict" based upon discovery.2

The basis for both the traditional and no-evidence summary judgment is not the
common law, but rather Rule 166a. Strict adherence must be given to the procedures set
forth in Rule 166a. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a . It provides numerous procedural safeguards
governing the form of the motion, time constraints, acceptable types of proof, and the
burden of proof, as well as the limited basis upon which the motion may be granted.

Burden of Proof in a No-Evidence Summary Judgment

The adoption of the no-evidence summary judgment is a significant departure from

the traditional Texas approach that the burden of proof on a summary judgment is always
on the movant. As recently as 1989, the Texas Supreme Court stated:

[W]e never shift the burden of proof to the non- movant unless and until the movant
has "establish[ed] his entitlement to a summary judgment on the issues expressly
presented to the trial court by conclusively proving all essential elements of his cause
of action or defense as a matter of law."3

1
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Hight v. Dublin Veterinary Clinic, 22 S.W.3d 614, 618 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2000, pet denied).

2 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986) (federal adoption of no- evidence summary
judgment rule upon which Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) is modeled).
3
Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex. 1989) (quoting City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin
Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979).

1
 The adoption of Rule 166a(i) "transcends and basically voids a half-century of
summary judgment case law."4 Today, the movant on a no-evidence summary judgment
has no burden of proof. Rule 166a(i) expressly provides that "a party without presenting
summary judgment evidence may move for a summary judgment."5 Thus, now:

The purpose of the summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the
proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial."6

Thus, a party without the burden of proof may move for a no evidence summary
judgment and force the party with the burden of proof to raise a fact issue on each
element of their ground specifically contested.7 Put another way, the movant has no
burden of proof. However, it is not proper for a defendant to move for a no evidence
summary judgment based upon its own affirmative defense.8
One appellate court has interpreted Rule 166a(i) to mean that it is improper for a no-
evidence movant to present summary judgment evidence and any summary judgment
evidence proffered by the movant is not to be considered by the court in determining the
propriety of summary judgment.9 Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court disapproved

4
Robinson v. Warner-Lambert & Old Corner Drug, 998 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.).
5
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
6
Robinson v. Warner-Lambert & Old Corner Drug, 998 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no
pet.) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
7
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).
8
Adams v. First Nat. Bank of Bells/Savoy, 154 S.W.3d 859, 876-877 (Tex. App. Dallas 2005) (A party
may not properly move for a no-evidence summary judgment on an affirmative defense that it has the
burden to prove at trial. Relying upon this principle, the plaintiff specially excepted to defendant's no
evidence summary judgment arguing "unclean hands" is an affirmative defense. However, because the
plaintiff relied upon an assertion of estoppel as a basis for her wrongful foreclosure claim, she bore the
burden as one seeking equitable relief to demonstrate "clean hands" and the trial court did not err in
denying the special exceptions to the no-evidence summary judgment.).
9
Lavy v. Pitts, 29 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Banzhaf v. ADT Sec. Systems
Southwest, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 180, 180 (Tex. App.— Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Kelly v. LIN Television of
Texas, 27 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Hight v. Dublin Veterinary Clinic, 22
S.W.3d 614, 618–19 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2000, pet. denied).

See also Grimes v. Andrews, 997 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (holding in cases where a
moving party attaches summary judgment evidence, the review would be conducted as though the motion
for summary judgment was a traditional one)

But see Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (Intimating that
no evidence movant may produce summary judgment evidence by its holding that because a no-evidence
motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) shifts the burden of raising a genuine issue of material
facts to the nonmovant, the movant's summary judgment proof in a no-evidence summary judgment
procedure does not have to be legally sufficient in order for the court to rule for the movant.).