law-sj-standards | summary judgment standards | when is a party entitled to summary judgment | how do
courts review motions for summary judgment | summary judgment burden of proof | evidentiary requirements
for SJ
no-evidence-vs-traditional-summary-judgment-motion
SJ STANDARDS
A party moving for traditional summary judgment must establish there is no genuine
issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
166a(c); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215–16 (Tex. 2003).
A defendant moving for summary judgment must conclusively negate at least one element
of the plaintiff’s theory of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each element of an
affirmative defense. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). If the
defendant establishes its right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise
a genuine issue of material fact. Id. We review a summary judgment de novo. Knott, 128
S.W.3d at 215. We take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in favor of the nonmovant. Id.
A party moving for traditional summary judgment must conclusively prove all of the elements of its cause of
action or defense as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44
S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001); Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 222-23 (Tex. 1999). When a
summary judgment does not specify or state the grounds on which the trial court relied, the non-movant on
appeal must negate any grounds on which the trial court could have relied, and we will affirm the summary
judgment on appeal if any of the grounds presented in the motion is meritorious. See Harwell v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex. 1995); Mellon Serv. Co. v. Touche Ross & Co., 17 S.W.3d
432, 435 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A non-movant is required to show that each ground
alleged in the motion for summary judgment was insufficient to support summary judgment. Star-Telegram,
Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995).
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. 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); Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004).
A no-evidence summary judgment motion may not properly be 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). When a party moves for both a traditional and a no-evidence summary
judgment, we first review the trial court's summary judgment under the no-evidence standard of Texas Rule
of Civil Procedure 166a(i). Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600. If the no-evidence summary judgment was properly
granted, we do not reach arguments under the traditional motion for summary judgment. Id.
HOUSTON CASES
WTG Gas Processing, LP v. ConocoPhillips Company (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 23, 2010)
(Seymore)(cross appeals, breach of contract and tortious-interference claims, no contract formed, statute of
frauds, summary judgment affirmed)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-08-00019-CV WTG Gas Processing, LP v. ConocoPhillips Company, Targa Field Services, LLC, Targa
Resources Texas GP LLC, Targa Resouces, Inc., Targa Texas Field Services, Lp and Warburg Pincus,
LLC Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Joseph J. Halbach
Generally, when we review cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider both motions and render the
judgment that the trial court should have rendered. Coastal Liquids Transp., L.P. v. Harris County Appraisal
Dist., 46 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. 2001). In a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant has the
burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997). To
demonstrate its entitlement to traditional summary judgment, a defendant 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). Evidence is
conclusive only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.
3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005). Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law,
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. City of Houston
v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678–79 (Tex. 1979). Zavadil v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (Tex.
App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 23, 2010)(Mirabal)
(tolling of limitations based on defendant's absence from state, no SoL tolling based on brief absences)
REVERSED AND RENDERED: Opinion by Senior Justice Mirabal
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Mirabal
14-09-00568-CV Jessica Zavadil v. Safeco Insurance Company of Ilinois
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: R. Jack Cagle
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
To succeed on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a(c), a movant must establish that there is no
genuine issue of material fact so that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P.
166a(c); Randall's Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). To conclusively establish
a matter, the movant must show that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from
the evidence. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 814 (Tex. 2005). The burden of proof is on the
movant, and all doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact are resolved against the
movant. Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). If the movant establishes a right to
summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-movant to raise a genuine issue of material fact in order to
defeat summary judgment. See Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995).
We review the trial court's granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment de novo. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). When reviewing a summary judgment, we take
all evidence favorable to the non-movant as true. Randall's Food Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d at 644; Nixon v. Mr.
Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). Similarly, every reasonable inference must be
indulged in favor of the non-movant and doubts must be resolved in his favor. Randall's Food Mkts., Inc., 891
S.W.2d at 644; Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49.
Ontiveros v. Williams (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010)(Hanks)
(breach of residential lease claim, mitigation of damages and failure to mitigate as affirmative defense,
trial by consent in summary judgment context, partial summary judgment on liability only,
proving amount of damages, attorney's fees)
REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Hanks
Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland
01-09-00454-CV Francisca Rosales and Jose Ontiveros v. Kimberly Williams
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Linda Storey
We review a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.
Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, the movant
has the burden of proving that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that there are no genuine
issues of material fact. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1995). When
both parties move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the
reviewing court should review the summary judgment evidence presented by both sides, determine all
questions presented and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered. Tex. Workers’
Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advocates, 136 S.W.3d 643, 648 (Tex. 2004).
United Fire & Casualty Company v. Boring & Tunneling Company of America
(Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010)(Keyes) (construction bond, notice provisions of the McGregor
Act substantially complied with, sworn statement was defective in that notary signature and seal was missing,
but issue overruled as a technicality)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Evelyn Keyes
Before Justices Keyes, Hanks and Sharp
01-08-00487-CV United Fire & Casualty Company v. Boring & Tunneling Company of America d/b/a
Bortunco Appeal from 270th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Brent Gamble
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE