Pleadings are ordinarily not considered competent summary judgment evidence. Laidlaw Waste Sys.
(Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 660 (Tex. 1995). An exception exists for judicial
admissions in an opponent's pleadings. Lyons v. Lindsey Morden Claims Mgmt., Inc., 985 S.W.2d 86,
92 (Tex. App.- El Paso 1998, no pet.) (if a party's pleadings contain judicial admissions negating a
cause of action, summary judgment may be granted on the basis of those pleadings).
"Assertions of fact, not [pled] in the alternative, in the live pleadings of a party are regarded as formal
judicial admissions." Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 568 (Tex. 2001)
(quoting Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex.1983)); Commercial Structures
& Interiors, Inc. v. Liberty Educ. Ministries, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 827, 835 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, no
pet.). A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence
on an issue. Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). A judicially
admitted fact is established as a matter of law, and the admitting party may not dispute it or introduce
evidence contrary to it. Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied); Dutton
v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 699 S.
W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, writ dism'd).
This rule is based on the public policy that it would be absurd and manifestly unjust to permit a party
to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by a clear and unequivocal statement. U.S. Fid. &
Guar. Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 229 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd); see also Peck,
172 S.W.3d at 31; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641. Five conditions must have occurred for a party's admission
to be conclusive against him: (1) the declaration relied upon must have been made in the course of a
judicial proceeding; (2) the declaration was contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of
recovery or defense asserted by the party; (3) the statement was deliberate, clear, and unequivocal;
(4) giving conclusive effect to the declaration would not run contrary to public policy; and (5) the
declaration related to a fact upon which a judgment for the opposing party was based. Carr, 242 S.W.
2d at 229; see also Peck, 172 S.W.3d at 31; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641-42.
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by judicial admission. In re A.C.S., 157 S.W.3d 9, 15
(Tex. App.-Waco 2004, no pet.).08-0708
BERNARD DOLENZ v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL
REVIEW BOARD; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑07‑00885‑CV, 259 SW3d 331, 06‑30‑08)
(subject-matter jurisdiction, property tax appeal, administrative remedies, timeliness) In this ad
valorem tax case, Bernard Dolenz appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his claims against the
Dallas Central Appraisal District and the Dallas County Appraisal Review Board for want of subject-