summary judgment proof standard in Texas

2026The Texas Supreme Court explained the interplay between summary judgment burdens and the plaintiff’s obligation to establish jurisdiction in Powell: Thus, when we stated in Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia that “[i]nitially, the defendant carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction,” 372 S.W.3d at 635 , we were referring to cases in which the plea to the jurisdiction mirrors a traditional or hybrid motion for summary judgment.

2024That is, “[i]nitially, the defendant carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.” Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 635 .

2011P. 38.1(i) (providing that a brief must contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”); Kupchynsky v. Nardiello, 230 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party gave general cite to case stating elements of cause of action but provided no argument or analysis); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120 , 126 n. 5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party merely cited to the summary-judgment proof and standard of review without p

2011P. 38.1(i) (providing that a brief must contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”); Kupchynsky v. Nardiello, 230 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party gave general cite to case stating elements of cause of action but provided no argument or analysis); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120 , 126 n.5 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party merely cited to the summary-judgment proof and standard of review with

2019I.S.D. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012) (“Initially, the defendant carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.”); see also Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 .

2019I.S.D., 372 S.W.3d at 635 (reiterating that when challenging the existence of jurisdictional facts, the defendant governmental entity carries the burden to meet the summary-judgment-proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 (stating that for jurisdictional pleas challenging the existence of jurisdictional facts, requiring the state to meet the summary-judgment standard of proof protects plaintiffs “from having to ‘put on their case simply to establish jurisdiction’” and that a plaintiff must come forward with evidence to raise a fact

2013See Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120 , 126 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (holding that issue was inadequately briefed when party merely cited to the summary-judgment proof and standard of review without providing any argument or analysis).

2011P. 38.1(i) (providing that a brief must contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”); Kupchynsky v. Nardiello, 230 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party gave general cite to case stating elements of cause of action but provided no argument or analysis); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120 , 126 n. 5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (issue inadequately briefed when party merely cited to the summary-judgment proof and standard of review without p

2021“If it does, the plaintiff is then required to show that a disputed material fact exists regarding the jurisdictional issue.” Id.; see also Clark, 544 S.W.3d at 764 (“[W]hen jurisdictional evidence negates the prima facie case or, as in this case, rebuts the presumption it affords, some evidence raising a fact issue on retaliatory intent is required to survive a jurisdictional plea.”).

2018I.S.D. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012) (reiterating that when challenging the existence of jurisdictional facts, the defendant government entity carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction); City of El Paso v. Collins, 483 S.W.3d 742 , 755–56 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (holding that a defendant government entity “cannot simply deny the existence of jurisdictional facts and force the plaintiffs to raise a fact issue” and that before a plaintiff has any burden to come forward with 9 jurisdictional evid

2014See Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 635 (“Initially, the defendant carries the burden to meet the summary judgment proof standard for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.”); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28 ; City of Dallas v. Zetterlund, 261 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“Given our standard of review, the question is whether the City proved as a matter of law that at least one of the challenged elements [of intent and public use] is absent.”).