law-sj-appeal

law-sj-appeal evidentiary requirements for SJ
no-evidence-vs-traditional-summary-judgment-motion

SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPEALS | APPELLATE CASE LAW

STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
We review summary judgments de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).

An appellate court applies de novo review to a grant of summary judgment, using the same standard that the
trial court used in the first instance. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).
Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex. 2001) (holding that court of appeals errs in reversing
summary judgment on claim when appellant does not complain of judgment’s rendition on that claim)

Traditional summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c) is proper only when a movant
establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Randall’s Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995); see TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). A
defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence disproves as a matter of law at least one element
of each of the plaintiff’s causes of action or if it conclusively establishes all elements of an affirmative
defense. Randall’s Food Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d at 644.
Wilson v. Davis (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 14, 2009)(Taft)
(theories of corporate liability for deadly car wreck caused by intoxicated individual, respondeat superior,
course and scope of employment, piercing corporate veil, alter ego theory, and others)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT:
Opinion by Justice Taft
Before Justices Taft, Keyes and Alcala
01-06-00424-CV Rhonda Wilson and Thomas Stevenson, et al. v. Sam Davis, Amalgam Western, et al
Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Harris County
A party may move for no-evidence summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) “if there
is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would
have the burden of proof at trial.” Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp., 994 S.W.
2d 830, 834 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.); see TEX.R.CIV.P.166a(i). “The trial court must
grant the motion unless the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of
material fact on the challenged elements.” Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc., 994 S.W.2d at 834.

In reviewing the granting of either type of summary-judgment motion, we indulge every reasonable inference
from the evidence in favor of the non-movant, resolve any doubts arising from the evidence in its favor, and
take as true all evidence favorable to it. Malcomson Rd. Util. Dist. v. Newsom, 171 S.W.3d 257, 263 (Tex. App.
—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied); Flameout Design, 994 S.W.2d at 834. When a summary judgment
does not specify the grounds upon which the trial court ruled, we must affirm it if any of the summary
judgment grounds on which judgment could be based is meritorious. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.
W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995).

Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex. 2001) (holding that court of appeals errs in reversing
summary judgment on claim when appellant does not complain of judgment’s rendition on that claim)

When, as here, the trial court does not specify in its order the grounds on which it relied in granting
summary judgment, we must affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds presented is
meritorious. W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005); Pico v. Capriccio Italian
Rest., 209 S.W.3d 902, 905 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Thus, to prevail on
appeal, Basey must show that each of the movants' theories is meritless. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v.
Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995). 14-07-00925-CV

C LAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO H OUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE