Haynes and Boone's Newsroom
Summary Judgments in Texas: State and Federal Practice
03/26/2010
Lynne Liberato
Judge David Hittner
This Article addresses the confluence of procedural changes that have shaped summary judgment practice. These changes are built upon a framework set out in the federal summary judgment trilogy - Celotex1, Matsushita2, and Liberty Lobby3 - and the application of the Texas "no-evidence" summary judgment rule.4 Also at play are the gate-keeping functions expressed in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.5 and the Texas Supreme Court opinion in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson6 and their impact upon expert testimony as a component of summary judgment practice. Most recently, the advent of a "reasonable juror" standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence plays a role in the changing framework upon which summary judgment practice has been built.7 Upon these pillars, this Article examines the procedural and substantive aspects of obtaining, opposing, and appealing a summary judgment, reviews the types of cases amenable to summary judgment, and, finally, provides an overview of federal summary judgment practice.
Judge David Hittner & Lynne Liberato, "Summary Judgments in Texas," 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1379 (2010).
To read the full article, click on the PDF linked below.
____________________
1 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
2 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
3 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
4 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i).
5 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 580 (1993).
6 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 555 (Tex. 1995).
7 Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005)).
____________________