# 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/9676703

## 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:** Dissent by Enoch
- **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/9676703

## 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

ENOCH, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the Court that the plain words of Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure establish a bright line rule. The grounds for the granting of a motion for summary judgment must be *350 stated in the motion. 1 However, I would not address any of the other issues, nor can I agree that in this case the failure to include the grounds in the motion itself is harmful. The evidence in the record establishes that neither the court nor the non-movant was unaware, confused or mislead as to the specific grounds being relied upon by the movant. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
PHILLIPS, C.J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
. Responding to Justice Hecht's criticism that requiring the grounds for summary judgment to be stated in the motion is a technicality without a purpose, at least one court of appeals has stated "... the trial brief is neither in the record before us nor would it properly be part of the appellate record." Concrete Constr. Supply v. M.F.C., Inc., 636 S.W.2d 475, 483-84 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982, no writ) (citing Tex.R.Civ.P. 376a, now found in Tex.R.App.P. 51 and 52 (emphasis added).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676703. Public record. Not legal advice.