PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN TEXAS COURTS
The longstanding rule is that allegations in pleadings are not competent summary judgment
evidence, even if sworn or verified. See Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.
2d 656, 660 (Tex. 1995); Americana Motel, Inc. v. Johnson, 610 S.W.2d 143, 143 (Tex. 1980); Clear
Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d at 678; Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 462 S.W.2d 540, 545
(Tex. 1971). "Pleadings outline the issues, but they are not evidence." Shawell v. Pend Oreille Oil &
Gas Co., 823 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1991, writ denied). Therefore, any averments
contained in pleadings are not proper summary judgment evidence and will not sustain the trial court's
summary judgment in favor of Whitehead.
Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656, 660 (Tex. 1995) (“Generally,
pleadings are not competent evidence, even if sworn or verified.”).
NEITHER IS A MOTION EVIDENCE, EVEN IF VERIFIED
Neither a motion for summary judgment nor a response, even if sworn, can ever be proper summary-
judgment proof. Quanain v. Frasco Rest. & Catering, 17 S.W.3d 30, 42 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g).
"Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts
as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify
as to the matters stated therein." Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f).