law-sj-no-evidence
After adequate time for discovery, a party may move for summary judgment on the ground there is no evidence of
one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof
at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 550; Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 905. The movant must state the
elements as to which there is no evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). Unless the respondent produces summary
judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court must grant the motion. Id.; Urena, 162 S.
W.3d at 550; Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 905.14-07-00925-CV
NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION | STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court applies de novo review to a grant of summary judgment, using the same standard that the trial
court used in the first instance. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). A party may
move for a traditional summary judgment after the adverse party has appeared or answered, and may move for a
no-evidence summary judgment after an adequate time for discovery has passed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a), (i).
Mayer v. Willowbrook Plaza LP (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009)(Boyce)
(premises liability, criminal conduct, wrongful death, survival action)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce
A traditional summary judgment may be granted if the motion and evidence show there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). In reviewing a
summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, indulge every reasonable inference
in favor of the nonmovant, and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291,
292 (Tex. 2006). The movant must establish entitlement to summary judgment on the issues expressly presented
to the trial court by conclusively proving all essential elements of the cause of action or defense as a matter of
law. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979).
A no-evidence motion for summary judgment must be granted if (1) the moving party asserts that there is no
evidence of one or more specified elements of a claim or defense on which the adverse party would have the
burden of proof at trial; and (2) the respondent produces no summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue
of material fact on those elements. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). In reviewing a no‑evidence motion for summary
judgment, we view all of the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "crediting
evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless
reasonable jurors could not." Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006). The non‑moving
party is not obligated to marshal its proof, but it is required to present evidence that raises a genuine fact issue
on the challenged element. Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002).
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 or affirmative defense. 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); Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600. A no-evidence summary judgment motion may not
be properly 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).
Grant v. Laughlin Environmental, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008)(Jennings)
(summary judgment evidence, conclusory affidavit, breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation)
When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment motion, we assume that all evidence favorable to the
nonmovant is true and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve all doubts in favor of the nonmovant.
Spradlin v. State, 100 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Because the trial court's
order granting LEI's no-evidence summary judgment motion does not specify the grounds upon which the trial
court relied, we must affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds in the summary judgment motion are
meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 872-73 (Tex. 2000).