law-traditional-motion for summary judgment | no-evidence motion for SJ
In a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the burden of establishing that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P.
166a(c); KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). A
defendant is entitled to summary judgment only upon (1) conclusive negation of at least one element of
each of the plaintiff's causes of action, or (2) conclusive establishment of each element of an affirmative
defense to each claim. KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748; Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941
S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997). In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding
summary judgment, summary judgment evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true,
every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant, and any doubts are resolved in
the nonmovant's favor. KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748; Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690
S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. 1985). We review de novo the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment.
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).
To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw.
Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002). A defendant moving for summary judgment
must conclusively negate at least one essential element of each of the plaintiff's causes of action or
conclusively establish each element of an affirmative defense. Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941
S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997); Shirvanian v. DeFrates, 161 S.W.3d 102, 106 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th
Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). When we review a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable
to the non-movant; we also indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in favor of the
non-movant. Grant, 73 S.W.3d at 215.
Garza v. Reed (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 7, 2009)(Hudson) (DTPA claim against insurer of
complained-of business fails on summary judgment; misrepresentation as to insurance coverage of
buy-back guarantee)(no-evidence summary judgment affirmed) (motion to transfer venue for
convenience)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Hudson
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Frost
14-08-00211-CV Joe M Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, and Ernest R. Bustos v. Jack P. Reed
and Houston Surplus Lines, Inc.
Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County
In a traditional motion for summary judgment, if the movant's motion and summary-judgment evidence
facially establish its right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a
genuine, material fact issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment. M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst.
v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. 2000). In our de novo review of a trial court's summary judgment, we
consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, crediting evidence favorable to
the nonmovant 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 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. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex.
2007).