law-MSJ
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TRADITIONAL SJ MOTION MUST STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS
RESPONSE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED
See Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999) (holding that, on appeal, a non-
movant "need not have answered or responded to the motion [for summary judgment] to contend that the
movant's summary judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment."); City of
Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979) ("Summary judgments must
stand on their own merits, and the non-movant's failure to answer or respond cannot supply by default the
summary judgment proof necessary to establish the movant's right.").
Affidavits containing conclusory statements unsupported by facts are not competent summary-judgment
evidence. Prime Prods, Inc. v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc., 97 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002,
pet. denied) (quoting Aldridge v. De Los Santos, 878 S.W.2d 288, 296 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ
dism'd w.o.j.)); Rizkallah v. Conner, 952 S.W.2d 580, 587 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.) ("A
conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion."). An
affidavit opposing a summary judgment motion must be factual—conclusions of the affiant lack probative
value. Prime Prods.,97 S.W.3d at 637; see also Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex.
1996) ("[Conclusory affidavits are neither] credible nor susceptible to being readily controverted.").
A motion for summary judgment must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion. TEX.
R. CIV. P. 166a; Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.1996); Perry v. Greanias, 95
S.W.3d 683, 700 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). It is reversible error to grant a summary
judgment motion on a claim not addressed in the motion. Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 658 S.W.
2d 563, 564 (Tex.1983); Perry, 95 S.W.3d at 701.
A defendant moving for summary judgment must conclusively negate at least one essential element of
each of the plaintiff's causes of action or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense.
Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997); Shirvanian v. DeFrates, 161 S.W.3d
102, 106 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). We take as true all evidence favorable to
the non-movant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the non-movant's
favor. Joe, 145 S.W.3d at 157; Aguirre, 225 S.W.3d at 750. We review a summary judgment for evidence
that would enable reasonable and fair-minded jurors to differ in their conclusions. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Spates, 186 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,
822-23 (Tex. 2005)).
Cruse v. O'Quinn (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2008)(Brown)
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE