McConnell v. Southside Independent School District

How later courts described this case

• stating that “[e]ven if the 41 non[]movant fails to except or respond, if the grounds for summary judgment are not expressly presented in the motion for summary judgment itself, the motion is legally insufficient as a matter of law” and concluding that “Rule 166a(c) does not require a non[]movant to except in this situation”
• holding that a motion for summary judgment must itself expressly present the grounds upon which it is made. A motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion. In determining whether grounds are expressly presented, reliance may not be placed on briefs or summary judgment evidence.
• holding that “[t]he practical effect of failure to [specially] except is that the non-movant loses his right to have the grounds for summary judgment narrowly focused, thereby running the risk of having an appellate court determine the grounds it believes were expressly presented in the summary judgment.”
• explaining that grounds for granting summary judgment must be expressly stated in the motion, 15 and grounds for avoiding summary judgment must be expressly stated “by written answer or other written response to the motion and are not expressly presented by mere reference to summary judgment evidence”

Written by the judges who cited it.