law-summary-judgment-standard | no-evidence motion for summary judgment |
summary judgment evidence - affidavits in support |
To prevail on a traditional summary-judgment motion, a movant must 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). “A movant
who conclusively negates at least one essential element of a cause of action is entitled to summary
judgment on that claim.” See IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Texas, Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794,
798 (Tex. 2004)(citing Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002)).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD &
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
The standard for reviewing a traditional summary judgment is well established. See Nixon v. Mr. Prop.
Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985); McAfee, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The movant has the burden of showing 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). In deciding whether a
disputed material fact issue exists precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will
be taken as true. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49; In re Estate of Berry, 280 S.W.3d 478, 480 (Tex. App.-
Dallas 2009, no pet.). Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any
doubts resolved in its favor. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex. 2005). We review a
summary judgment de novo to determine whether a party's right to prevail is established as a matter of
law. Dickey v. Club Corp. of Am., 12 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, pet. denied).
Summary judgment is proper only when a movant establishes that there 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).
A matter-of-law summary judgment is proper only when the movant establishes that there 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.
The standard of review for a traditional summary judgment is well established: (1) the movant for summary
judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is therefore
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact
issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true; and (3)
every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in the
nonmovant’s favor. See, e.g., Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985).
In a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show there is no genuine
issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.
W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). In determining whether there is a genuine fact issue precluding summary
judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true and the reviewing court makes all
reasonable inferences and resolves all doubts in the non-movant’s favor. Id. at 548–49. If there is no
genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment should issue as a matter of law. Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.
W.3d 795, 797 (Tex. 2001). A defendant who conclusively negates at least one of the essential elements
of a plaintiff’s cause of action is entitled to a summary judgment on that claim. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr.
of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. 2004). Once a defendant establishes its right
to summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with competent controverting
summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.
W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995).
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). Res judicata is an affirmative defense.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; W. Dow Hamm III Corp. v. Millennium Income Fund, L.L.C., 237 S.W.3d 745, 755 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). A defendant is entitled to summary judgment based upon an
affirmative defense when the defendant proves all elements of the affirmative defense. Henry v. Masson,
No. 01-07-00522-CV, 2010 WL 5395640, at *16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2010, no pet.)
(citing Havlen v. McDougall, 22 S.W.3d 343, 345 (Tex. 2000)).
To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, a movant must prove that there is no genuine issue
regarding any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a
(c); Little v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 148 S.W.3d 374, 381 (Tex. 2004). A party moving for summary
judgment on one of its own claims must conclusively prove all essential elements of the claim. See Rhone-
Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999). A defendant may also prevail by traditional
summary judgment if it conclusively negates at least one essential element of a plaintiff’s claim or
conclusively proves an affirmative defense. See IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v.
Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. 2004). A movant seeking traditional summary judgment on an
affirmative defense has the initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by
conclusively establishing each element of its affirmative defense. See Chau v. Riddle, 254 S.W.3d 453,
455 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(b)–(c). A matter is conclusively established if
reasonable people could not differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. See City of Keller
v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005).
If the movant meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine issue of
material fact precluding summary judgment. See Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197
(Tex. 1995). The evidence raises a genuine issue of fact if reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ
in their conclusions in light of all of the summary-judgment evidence. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam).
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex.,
253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of America, No. 08-0589 (Tex. Jul.
3, 2009)(per curiam) (judicial estoppel based on bankruptcy proceeding held inapplicable)
Standard of Review (Tex.App., pet. denied)
08-0275
PANQUITA CARTER v. UNIVERSITY TEXAS SYSTEMS; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-07-00592-CV,
___ SW3d ___, 02-25-08, pet. denied Oct. 2008)(workers comp, compensable injury, carpal tunnel
syndrome, frivolous appeal sanctions denied)
The standard for review of a traditional summary judgment is well-settled. We review a summary judgment
de novo to determine whether a party has established its right to summary judgment as a matter of law.
See Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293, 295 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). A
party moving for a traditional summary judgment must show no material fact issue exists and it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P.166a(c); Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d at 295. When reviewing a
summary judgment, we must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,
indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. City of Keller v. Wilson,
168 S.W.3d 802, 824-25 (Tex. 2005).