Wilson v. Burford
| Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-1248-94-1251,s. 94-1248-94-1251 |
| Citation | 904 S.W.2d 628 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 680 Lee WILSON, Petitioner, v. John W. BURFORD and Sue Burford, Respondents. Lee WILSON, Petitioner, v. James T. HODGES, Dona J. Hodges and Carolyn Heath, Respondents. Lee WILSON, Petitioner, v. Keith JONES and Brenda Gail Jones, Respondents. Lee WILSON, individually and d/b/a Lee Wilson Realty; Ted V. Salyer, Individually and d/b/a Salyer and Wilson Construction Company; Donald Morgan Salyer and Lorene Salyer, individually, Petitioners, v. Jessie PARKER and Shirley A. Parker, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
William S. Hommel, Reid William Martin, Tyler, for petitioner.
Bob Whitehurst, Tyler, for respondents.
Evidence that may be considered in granting summary judgment includes "deposition transcripts ... referenced or set forth in the motion or response". TEX.R.CIV.P. 166a(c). In these four cases consolidated on appeal, the court of appeals held that a deposition transcript attached to a brief in support of a motion for summary judgment, filed with the motion, and referenced in the non-movant's response, was not proper summary judgment evidence. 885 S.W.2d 253. We disagree.
Plaintiffs in these cases are four sets of homeowners. Defendants were involved in the construction or sale of plaintiffs' homes. Plaintiffs sued defendants for defects in the homes' sewer systems. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that all the actions are barred by limitations. The motion did not incorporate or refer to any specific summary judgment evidence. However, an accompanying brief referred to a deposition attached to the brief. The deposition was also referred to in plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion. The trial court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed solely for the reason that the deposition was not proper summary judgment evidence.
The court of appeals concluded that summary judgment evidence must be referenced or set forth in the motion. We need not consider whether evidence referenced in a brief in support of a motion for summary judgment is part of the summary judgment record. Rule 166a(c) plainly includes in the record evidence attached either to the motion or to a response. Plaintiffs argue that McConnell v. Southside Indep. School District, 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.1993), requires that summary judgment evidence must be set out in the motion. This argument misreads McConnell, which holds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitness Evolution, L.P. v. Headhunter Fitness, L.L.C., 05-13-00506-CV
...R. CIV. P. 166a(c). The summary judgment record includes evidence attached to either the motion or response. See Wilson v. Burford, 904 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (discussing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c)); Worldwide Asset Purchasing, L.L.C. v. Rent-A-Center E., Inc., ......
-
Fitness Evolution, L.P. v. Headhunter Fitness, L.L.C., 05-13-00506-CV
...TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). The summary judgment record includes evidence attached to either the motion or response. See Wilson v. Burford, 904 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (discussing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c)); Worldwide Asset Purchasing, L.L.C. v. Rent-A-Center East,......
-
Schronk v. City of Burleson
...not be considered as part of the summary-judgment record. 885 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994), rev'd on other grounds,904 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.1995) (per curiam). The Supreme Court reversed because a deposition attached to the appellees' supporting brief was also referred to in the appella......
-
Schronk v. City of Burleson and Laerdal Medical Corp., No. 10-07-00399-CV (Tex. App. 7/22/2009)
...be considered as part of the summary-judgment record. 885 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 904 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). The Supreme Court reversed because a deposition attached to the appellees' supporting brief was also referred to in the appellan......