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

After adequate time for discovery, a party may move for summary judgment on the ground
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. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Urena, 162 S.W.
3d at 550; Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 905.  The movant must state the elements as to which there is
no evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).  Unless the respondent produces summary judgment
evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court must grant the motion. Id.;
Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 550; Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 905.14-07-00925-CV

NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION | STANDARD OF REVIEW  

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). A party may move for a traditional summary judgment after the adverse party has
appeared or answered, and may move for a no-evidence summary judgment after an adequate time
for discovery has passed.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a), (i).  
Mayer v. Willowbrook Plaza LP (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009)(Boyce)
(
premises liability, criminal conduct, wrongful death, survival action)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce  
A traditional summary judgment may be granted if the motion and evidence show there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a
(c).  In reviewing a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant,
indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the nonmovant, and resolve any doubts in the
nonmovant's favor.  Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2006).  The movant must establish
entitlement to summary judgment on the issues expressly presented to the trial court by conclusively
proving all essential elements of the cause of action or defense as a matter of law.  City of Houston v.
Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979).

A no-evidence motion for summary judgment must be granted if (1) the moving party asserts that
there is no evidence of one or more specified elements of a claim or defense on which the adverse
party would have the burden of proof at trial; and (2) the respondent produces no summary judgment
evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on those elements.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).  In
reviewing a no‑evidence motion for summary judgment, we view all of the summary judgment evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable
jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not."  Mack Trucks,
Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006).  The non‑moving party is not obligated to marshal its
proof, but it is required to present evidence that raises a genuine fact issue on the challenged
element.  Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002).


To prevail on a no-evidence summary judgment motion, a movant must allege that there is no
evidence of an essential element of the adverse party's cause of action or affirmative defense. Tex.
R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Fort Worth Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v. Reese, 148 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Tex. 2004). We
review a no-evidence summary judgment under the same legal sufficiency standard used to review a
directed verdict. Gen. Mills Rests., Inc. v. Tex. Wings, Inc., 12 S.W.3d 827, 832-33 (Tex. App.--Dallas
2000, no pet.). Although the non-moving party is not required to marshal its proof, it must present
evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact on each of the challenged elements. Tex. R. Civ.
P. 166a(i); Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600. A no-evidence summary judgment motion may not be
properly granted if the non-movant brings forth more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a genuine
issue of material fact on the challenged elements. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600. More than a scintilla
of evidence exists when the evidence "rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded
people to differ in their conclusions." Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.
1997).
Grant v. Laughlin Environmental, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008)(Jennings)
(
summary judgment evidence, conclusory affidavit, breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation)
When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment motion, we assume that all evidence favorable to
the nonmovant is true and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve all doubts in favor of the
nonmovant. Spradlin v. State, 100 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
Because the trial court's order granting LEI's no-evidence summary judgment motion does not specify
the grounds upon which the trial court relied, we must affirm the summary judgment if any of the
grounds in the summary judgment motion are meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin,
22 S.W.3d 868, 872-73 (Tex. 2000).


TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE