Requiring certified copies for summary judgment motions referencing court records
Also stated as: Considering authentic documents without summary judgment conversion
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Requiring certified copies for summary judgment motions referencing court records
- Cited for: Authenticating documents for summary judgment evidence
- Cited for: Authentication requirements for summary judgment evidence
- Cited for: Authenticating documentary evidence for summary judgment
- Cited for: Authenticating deposition excerpts for summary judgment motions
- Cited for: Requirements for authenticating documents in summary judgment
- Cited for: Authenticating deposition excerpts for summary judgment
- Cited for: Requirements for summary judgment evidence authentication
Ranked by how often Texas courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
Texas opinions citing these pages
- Gunville v. Gonzales, 508 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016)
- in the Est. of Rosa Elvia Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015)
- Kenneth Huffaker v. Wylie LP Gas, Inc., No. 07-08-00133-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 29, 2009)
- Samuel Mayo v. Suemaur Expl. & Prod. LLC, No. 14-07-00491-CV, 2008 WL 4355259 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008)
- Samuel Mayo v. Suemaur Expl. & Prod. LLC, No. 14-07-00491-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008)
- Ramesh Gudur v. Texas Dep't of Health, No. 03-03-00752-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 8742 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 21, 2005)
- Ramesh Gudur v. Texas Dep't of Health, No. 03-03-00752-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 21, 2005)
- Daryl Gillespie v. Wells Fargo Bank & New Century Morgage Corp., No. 01-03-00742-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2004)
- In the Interest of K.W., a Child v. the State of Texas, No. 10-25-00049-CV (Tex. App.—Waco June 26, 2025)
- Anthony Garza v. Fesco Distributors, No. 03-24-00021-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24, 2025)
- Enrique O. Guillen v. Cristian Andres Gomez & Los Fresnos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 13-22-00515-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 17, 2025)
- In the Interest of T.M.B. & I.B., Child. v. the State of Texas, No. 13-24-00070-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 10, 2025)
- Stephen Sakonchick, II v. Overlook at Rob Roy Owner, LLC, No. 03-23-00085-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2025)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 76 opinions
- 87 opinions
- 129 opinions
- 216 opinions
- 34 opinions
- 155 opinions
- 62 opinions
- 240 opinions
Filed under: Summary judgment; Judgment motions; Evidence summary
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law