Whether in state or federal court, a cornerstone of civil procedure and trial practice is the motion for summary judgment. The basic tenants of the motion are well-known—a moving party prevails when there is no genuine issue of material fact, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–49 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). In layman’s terms, a court will grant dispose of a case where there is no dispute over the material facts of the case, resolving the matter summarily before the need to conduct a bench or jury trial.
Unlike practice under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for summary judgment in Texas comes in several forms that a party can file: a “traditional” motion for summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), a “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i), or a hybrid filing of the two. A “traditional” summary judgment motion “is based on the movant’s contention that no genuine issue exists for any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Judge David Hittner, Summary Judgments in Texas: State and Federal Practice, 62 S. Tex. L. Rev. 99, 108 (2023) (internal citations omitted). It is as close of a recitation to the federal standard as a state rule could get.
Conversely, lacking a counterpart at the federal level, a Texas “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment “is based on the movant’s contention ‘that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.’” Id. (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i)). Making matters more complex, these “types” of motions are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in a singular, hybrid motion. The nuances may be slight, but important: courts look to what the record and evidence reflect to determine the motion “type.” See id. at 109. Other core differences between the types of motions include which parties can appropriately file, shifting burdens of proof, and respective filing timelines. See id. at 109–17.
To clarify and provide further guidance on this essential motion practice, the Texas Supreme Court is proposing to “completely rewrite” the language of Rule 166a (“Rule”)—the Rule pertaining to summary judgment in Texas state courts—in a recent order dated December 30, 2025. Compared to the existing Rule, there are several, notable amendments in this “Proposed Rule”:
- At the outset, the proposed amendment provides clear definitions of the “types” of summary judgment motions, something that the current Rule does not. See Proposed Rule 166a(a)(1), (2).
- The Proposed Rule then specifies that the title of the motion should indicate which “type” that the party is seeking relief under; importantly, however, “mislabeling” the motion will not lead to automatic denial by the court. See Proposed Rule 166a(b)(2)(A).
- Although the current Rule requires specific grounds to be pled to prevail under either “type,” the Proposed Rule enhances this by requiring the filer of a “no-evidence” motion to state the elements lacking evidence. Compare Current Rule 166a(c), (i) with Proposed Rule 166a(b)(2)(C), (D).
- The Proposed Rule also differentiates between the appropriate time to file a “traditional” motion versus a “no-evidence” motion. Specifically, a “traditional” motion can be filed any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered, whereas “no-evidence” motions can be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. See Proposed Rule 166a(b)(3).
- Procedural requirements will affect courts as well. The applicable clerk must immediately notify the presiding court of a summary judgment filing, and that court must then promptly set the motion for hearing or written submission (no later than 35 days after the motion has been filed). See Proposed Rule 166a(c), (g)(1).
- The Proposed Rule also enforces a 21-day post-filing response deadline—along with a reply deadline of 7 day. This is a stark change from the current Rule, which calculates a response deadline based on an assigned hearing date, and which does not provide a reply deadline at all. See Proposed Rule 166a(d), (e).
- The Proposed Rule also requires filers to submit a proposed order before the hearing/submission date, a requirement that has long been handled differently on a court-by-court basis. See Proposed Rule 166a(g)(3).
- Finally, the Proposed Rule will require a court to sign a written ruling on a motion and file it into the record (i.e., with the clerk) within 90 days after the hearing or written submission date. This provides another procedural adjustment for courts not presently found in the current Rule. See Proposed Rule 166a(i).
The Texas Supreme Court is accepting comments regarding the proposed amendments via email at rulescomments@txcourts.gov until February 28, 2026. Pending public comments, the amendments are anticipated to take effect on March 1, 2026. To read the Court’s entire order and the complete proposed amendment, click here.
At the time of this publication, Jean’s application for admission to practice in the State of Texas is pending approval.