# McConnell v. Southside Independent School District

> Texas Supreme Court · September 10, 1993 · 858 S.W.2d 337

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676701

## Case

- **Full name:** John S. McCONNELL, Petitioner, v. SOUTHSIDE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dr. David S. Smith, Miguel M. Fernandez, Sammie Kerby, Joe L. Weiss, MacK C. Stallcup, Gilbert P. Arredondo, and Julian Gonzales, Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 10, 1993
- **Citations:** 858 S.W.2d 337; 1993 WL 121787
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gonzalez
- **Judges:** Cornyn, Enoch, Gonzalez, Hecht, Hightower, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 1,708 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Cargill, Incorporated v. Merit Distribution Services, Inc. (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676701

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 r…
- 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 brief…
- 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 presen…
- 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 s…
- holding that a nonmovant must present in writing any issue that would defeat movant’s right to summary judgment, and indicating in dicta that to preserve error, the nonmovant must obtain a ruling on any exception prior to or at the hearing on the motion

## Opinion text

GONZALEZ, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the Court that Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that the grounds for a motion for summary judgment must be set out in the motion itself and cannot be furnished by an accompanying brief. If the Rule does not mean what it says, we ought to change it. Because I would not reach the other issues addressed by the Court, I join only in the judgment and not the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676701. Public record. Not legal advice.