Law-UDJA-SJ-standard-of-review-on-appeal | DJA | attorney's fees under the UDJA | declaratory relief | UDJA |
declaratory relief | DJA | attorney's fees under the UDJA |
UDJA SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ON REVIEW
Declaratory judgments decided by summary judgment are reviewed under the same standards of review that
govern summary judgments generally. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.010 (Vernon 2006); Lidawi v.
Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 112 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
Under the traditional summary judgment standard of review, a movant has the burden to show at the trial level
that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. KPMG Peat
Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). In determining whether there
is a genuine fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true
and we make all reasonable inferences in his favor. Id. We review the trial court's summary judgment de
novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). A movant is entitled to summary
judgment only if it conclusively proves all essential elements of its claim. Johnston v. Crook, 93 S.W.3d 263,
273 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).
When both parties move for summary judgment, each party bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex. 2000).
When the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, we review the summary judgment evidence
presented by both parties and determine all questions presented. Id. The reviewing court should render the
judgment that the trial court should have rendered or reverse and remand if neither party has met its
summary judgment burden. Id.
Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 21,
2009)(Anderson)(insurance law, coverage dispute, construction of policy, applicability of exclusion, causality
analysis, formation of contract without signature, performance by party)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Anderson
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-07-01006-CV Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Global Enercom Management, Inc
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: LEVI JAMES BENTON
CONCURRING/DISSENTING: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Seymore
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE