law-summary-judgment-standards | PMSJ | DMSJ | competing cross-motions for summary judgment |
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS - STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL
We review a trial court’s summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656,
661 (Tex. 2005); Provident Life Accid. & Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). Under the
traditional standard for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show that no genuine issue of
material fact exists and that the trial court should grant a judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P 166a
(c); KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). When
reviewing a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d at 661; Knott,
128 S.W.3d at 215; Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997).
To prevail on a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish that there is no
evidence to support an essential element of the non-movant's claim. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); see Flameout
Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp., 994 S.W.2d 830, 834 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1999, no pet.). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to present evidence raising a genuine issue of
material fact as to the elements specified in the motion. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582
(Tex. 2006). "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, 994 S.W.2d at 834.
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, as here, the trial court's summary judgment order
does not state the basis for the trial court's decision, we must uphold the order if any of the theories
advanced in the motion is meritorious. Knott, 128 S.W.3d at 216.
Traditional summary judgment is proper only if the movant establishes that here is no genuine issue of
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). The
motion must state the specific grounds relied upon for summary judgment. Id. A defendant moving for
traditional 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., 941
S.W.2d at 911. Martinez v. Melendez (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Opinion by Bland)
(wrongful death, dump truck wreck, negligent hiring, training, supervision, training, and negligence per se
claims)(no imposition of vicarious liability through proof of an employer-employee relationship, right to
control test for employee or independent contractor status)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jane Nenninger Bland
Panel members: Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp
01-08-00850-CV Luci Martinez, Individually and the Personal Representative of the Estate of Luis Martinez;
and Jose Martinez and Maria Martinez v. Moises Melendez
Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Patricia J. Kerrigan
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 be entitled 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. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79
(Tex. 1979). Lowe's Home Centers Inc. v. GSW Marketing, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 30,
2009 (op. by Guzman) (workplace safety, premises liability-store - falling merchandise, negligent activity and
premises liability, premises defect, worker compensation subrogation)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Eva Guzman | Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan
14-07-00953-CV Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmaker, Inc.
d/b/a CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: JOSEPH J. HALBACH
We review a trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164
S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005); Provident Life Accid. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003).
Under the standard for traditional summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show that no genuine
issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c);
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). “When
reviewing a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.” Knott, 128 S.W.3d at 215; Sci.
Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997); see Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d at 661.
DBHL, Inc. v. Moen Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Opinion by Bland)(product liability, no
indemnity owed)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jane Bland
Panel members: Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp
01-08-00046-CV DBHL, Inc. and Dearborn HL, S. de R.L. de C.V.
v. Moen Incorporated and Moen Sonora S.A. de C.V.
Appeal from 295th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tracy Christopher
In a no-evidence summary judgment, the movant represents that there is no evidence of one or more
essential elements of the claims for which the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P.
166a(i); Green v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 514, 518 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet.
denied). We sustain a no‑evidence summary judgment when (a) there is a complete absence of evidence of
a vital fact, (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence
offered to prove a vital fact, (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or
(d) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner,
953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). “Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is >so weak
as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion' of a fact." King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.
W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003) (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983)).
Lowe's Home Centers Inc. v. GSW Marketing, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 30, 2009 (op. by
Guzman) (workplace safety, premises liability-store - falling merchandise, negligent activity and premises
liability, premises defect, worker compensation subrogation)
The summary judgment movant has the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that
it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.
2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). When both sides 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 and determine all questions presented. Comm'rs Court v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Tex. 1997). The
reviewing court should then render the judgment the trial court should have rendered. Id. We review issues
of statutory construction de novo. Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715, 720 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
2003, no pet.) Hadley v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 28, 2009)(Yates)
(doctor not a seller for indemnity purposes against manufacturer of medicine)
We review summary judgments de novo, Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett,[10] and if the trial court grants
the judgment without specifying the grounds, we must affirm if any of the grounds presented are
meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 872-73 (Tex. 2000). We consider all
grounds preserved for review that are necessary for final disposition of the appeal. See Cincinnati Life Ins.
Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. 1996). 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
be entitled to a final 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).
Rowan Companies, Inc. v. Wilington Trust Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 31, 2009) (Guzman)
When, as here, both sides move for summary judgment, each bears the burden of establishing that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law; neither side can prevail because of the other’s failure to discharge its
burden. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 969 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tex.App.- Dallas 1998) (en banc), aff’
d, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000). On appeal, we review all summary-judgment evidence, determine all
questions presented, and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered. Valence Operating Co.,
164 S.W.3d at 661. We may affirm the judgment, reverse and render a judgment for the other side if
appropriate, or reverse and remand if neither party has met its summary-judgment burden. Hackberry
Creek Country Club, Inc. v. Hackberry Creek Home Owners Ass’n, 205 S.W.3d 46, 50 (Tex.App.- Dallas
2006, pet. denied).
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE