Supreme Court of Texas hears dispute over Rule 166a attachment requirement in no‑evidence summary judgments

The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on whether a respondent opposing a no‑evidence motion for summary judgment must attach affidavits to its response, or whether citing evidence already on file and identifying the relevant portions is sufficient.

The question arose during oral argument in Cause No. 2058, in which petitioner counsel argued that Rule 166a(i) requires a nonmovant to “produce evidence, which just means bringing evidence that's already in the trial court's file to the court's attention.” Miss Baumgartner, counsel for the petitioner, told the court she had specifically cited Officer Bacon's affidavit in the response and said the court of appeals erred by imposing an attachment requirement.

Why it matters: The court's guidance would affect routine civil practice in Texas trial courts — in particular how litigants opposing no‑evidence summary judgment show the existence of a genuine fact issue when the disputed material already appears elsewhere in the trial‑court record. Counsel and the justices debated where the line should fall between acceptable citation and an obligation to attach documents for the court's convenience.

Petiti…