Here’s a breakdown of the recent summary judgment case from the Texas Supreme Court, No. 24-0258, State of Texas v. $3774.28. You can read the full text of the opinion by clicking here.
The core issue is about how a trial court should handle evidence when ruling on a no-evidence motion for summary judgment—specifically whether previously filed evidence that is referenced but not attached to a response must be considered.
Background:
The State of Texas seized several sums of money from Oljine Noguez and Manuel Zepeda Mendoza during an opioid trafficking investigation. The State filed civil forfeiture suits alleging the money was tied to criminal activity. The seizure notices included a sworn affidavit from investigating officer Bryan Bacon detailing probable cause.
Years later, the claimants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing the State had no evidence supporting essential elements of the forfeiture claim. The State responded by referencing Officer Bacon’s affidavit (already in the court record) but did not attach it to their response. The trial court refused to consider the affidavit on the basis it wasn’t attached and granted summary judgment to the claimants. The State appealed.
Court of Appeals:
Affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that nonmovants must attach evidence to their response to no-evidence motions, not just reference it.
Texas Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed that decision. Key points:
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) requires a party opposing a no-evidence motion to produce evidence raising a fact issue, but it does not explicitly require attaching previously filed evidence to the response.
- “Produce” means to bring forward or point out — so referencing and discussing evidence already in the record is enough to “produce” it.
- Attaching evidence is encouraged but not mandatory if the response adequately points the court to the evidence.
- The court stressed that Texas law favors resolving disputes on the merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
- The State’s response sufficiently summarized and pointed out specific parts of Officer Bacon’s 44-page affidavit to create a fact issue, so the trial court abused its discretion by not considering it.
- Evidence attached to pleadings can be competent summary judgment evidence. Just because it was filed earlier as part of pleadings doesn’t mean it can’t be considered later.
- The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion with the affidavit considered.
Summary:
The court clarified that when responding to a no-evidence summary judgment motion, a party doesn’t have to attach evidence already in the court record; it just has to clearly point to it and show how it creates a fact issue. Refusing to consider such evidence based on attachment technicalities is an abuse of discretion.
Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information