A traditional motion for summary judgment is the primary mechanism by which a Texas court may dispose of a claim or defense when the movant can establish, through admissible evidence, that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Traditional summary judgment practice is governed by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(a), (b), and (c), and it differs fundamentally from a no-evidence motion in both purpose and burden.
Understanding how traditional summary judgment works is essential because the movant bears a substantial evidentiary burden, and procedural missteps frequently determine the outcome.
What Is a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment?
A traditional motion for summary judgment requires the moving party to affirmatively prove its entitlement to judgment. Unlike a no-evidence motion, which challenges the sufficiency of the opposing party’s proof, a traditional motion succeeds only if the movant’s evidence conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
The trial court’s role is limited. It does not weigh evidence, resolve conflicts, or assess credibility. Instead, the court determines whether the summary judgment record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, raises any material fact issue that must be resolved at trial.
Who May File a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment?
Any party may file a traditional motion for summary judgment. A claimant may seek judgment on a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or request for declaratory relief. A defending party may seek summary judgment on any claim or defense asserted against it.
Traditional motions may be directed at the entire case or limited to discrete issues, including liability alone. When summary judgment is granted on less than all claims or issues, the resulting order is interlocutory unless it disposes of all parties and claims.
The Movant’s Burden in a Traditional Motion
The defining feature of a traditional motion for summary judgment is the movant’s burden. To prevail, the moving party must either conclusively establish every element of its own claim or conclusively negate at least one essential element of the opposing party’s claim or defense.
This burden is exacting. Evidence is conclusive only if reasonable jurors could not differ in their conclusions. All evidence favorable to the nonmovant must be taken as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the nonmovant’s favor. If the summary judgment evidence permits competing reasonable interpretations, summary judgment must be denied.
Because of this standard, traditional motions frequently turn on the sufficiency, clarity, and admissibility of the movant’s evidence rather than on the volume of materials submitted.
Evidence Supporting a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment
Traditional summary judgment must be supported by admissible evidence. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a permits the court to consider affidavits, deposition excerpts, interrogatory answers, admissions, stipulations, and authenticated or certified public records. Discovery materials not already on file may be used if they are properly filed, appended, or specifically referenced in accordance with the rule.
Affidavits must be based on personal knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible at trial, and affirmatively demonstrate the affiant’s competence to testify. Defects in form must be objected to or they are waived, while defects in substance may render evidence legally insufficient regardless of objection.
Because the court cannot infer missing facts or resolve ambiguities in the movant’s favor, evidentiary precision is critical in traditional summary judgment practice.
The Nonmovant’s Response to a Traditional Motion
Once a traditional motion is properly supported, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The nonmovant is not required to prove its case at this stage. It need only produce evidence that would allow reasonable factfinders to differ in their conclusions.
Credibility disputes, conflicting testimony, and competing reasonable inferences are sufficient to defeat a traditional motion. Summary judgment is improper if resolution of the issue would require the court to choose between competing versions of events or assess witness credibility.
Deadlines for Traditional Summary Judgment Motions
Traditional summary judgment practice is governed by strict timing requirements. Absent leave of court, a motion for summary judgment and any supporting evidence must be filed and served at least twenty-one days before the hearing, and the nonmovant’s response and opposing evidence must be filed and served no later than seven days before the hearing.
In many cases, however, the court’s scheduling order alters when summary judgment motions may be filed or heard. Scheduling orders frequently impose dispositive-motion deadlines that operate independently of Rule 166a’s notice periods. When a scheduling order addresses summary judgment timing, it controls.
Because missing a filing or response deadline can bar consideration of evidence or the motion itself, careful deadline calculation is essential.
CourtDeadlines Tip:
Use a hearing-based summary judgment calculator to determine default filing and response deadlines under Rule 166a, and always confirm whether a scheduling order modifies those dates.
Texas Summary Judgment Deadline Calculator
Calculates default deadlines under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a based on the hearing date. Confirm whether a scheduling order or court order changes these deadlines.
Partial Summary Judgment and Issues Established as a Matter of Law
If a traditional motion does not resolve the entire case, the court may grant partial summary judgment. In that circumstance, the court may identify material facts that are established as a matter of law and direct how the remaining issues will proceed.
These rulings often have significant strategic consequences. Issues resolved by partial summary judgment are removed from the jury’s consideration and may shape trial strategy, jury instructions, and evidentiary rulings.
Common Reasons Traditional Motions Fail
Traditional summary judgment motions most often fail because the movant has not carried its evidentiary burden. Common pitfalls include reliance on conclusory affidavits, failure to authenticate documents, overbroad grounds that do not target specific elements, and arguments that implicitly ask the court to resolve credibility disputes.
Procedural errors, including missed deadlines or failure to comply with a scheduling order, also frequently prevent courts from reaching the merits of a traditional motion.
How Traditional Motions Fit into Texas Litigation Strategy
Traditional summary judgment motions are most effective when the evidentiary record is fully developed and the legal issues are well defined. They are commonly filed after the close of discovery or in conjunction with, or in anticipation of, no-evidence motions.
Because traditional and no-evidence motions impose distinct burdens and serve different purposes, careful consideration of timing, strategy, and procedural posture is essential.