Definitions: Traditional vs No-Evidence Motions

The Texas Supreme Court is taking comments on its rewritten summary judgment Rule 166a before the rule goes into effect on March 1. To help practitioners understand its implications, hosts Jody Sanders and Todd Smith provide context for the rewrite and take a deep dive into the rule’s requirements. Tune in as they break down, among other details, how the rule defines traditional and no-evidence summary judgments, what it requires when those motions are combined, and how it changes the timing of the non-movant’s response to within 21 days after the motion is filed.

As Jody explains, the Court concluded that summary judgment motions “were either sitting around too long without being heard or without being ruled upon” and set out to address that problem. Todd adds, “This is a huge change from the old rule” that will “require non-movants to be far more proactive in getting their responses done and ready than they were before.”

Email your comments about Rule 166a to rulescomments@txcourts.gov by February 28.

Connect and Learn More

☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky

☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X | Bluesky

☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram | Bluesky

☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC

☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn

☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Produced and Powered by LawPods

Sponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Counsel Press