Texas Rewrites Its Summary Judgment Rules for the First Time in Nearly 30 Years
On February 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas signed Misc. Docket No. 26-9012, finalizing a comprehensive overhaul of Rule 166a. The amendments took effect on March 1, 2026 and apply to every summary judgment motion filed on or after that date.
The new rule introduces hard deadlines at every stage of the process, adds a formal reply mechanism for the moving party, tightens evidence requirements, and creates a new "damages carve-out" that allows courts to grant partial summary judgment on liability alone. The Court's official comment describes the rewrite as an effort to "modernize the rule."
The amendments stem from Senate Bill 293 and House Bill 16, both passed during the 89th Texas Legislature. Both bills received significant support from the Texas Civil Justice League and Texans for Lawsuit Reform, two of the most prominent tort reform organizations in the state. Those groups have publicly advocated for tighter summary judgment standards for years, arguing that the prior rule allowed too many weak cases to reach trial.
Plaintiff's attorneys across the state see it differently. The practical effect of nearly every change in this rewrite favors the party filing the motion. In personal injury litigation, that party is almost always the defendant.
New Titling and Definition Requirements
The amended rule now requires every summary judgment motion to carry a specific title. A traditional motion must be labeled "Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment." A no-evidence motion must be labeled "No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment." A combined motion must use "Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment."
An incorrect or missing title is not grounds for denial. But the formalization adds a layer of procedural compliance that large defense firms, with their template libraries and dedicated motion banks, are better positioned to absorb than solo practitioners and small plaintiff's firms carrying heavy caseloads.
The definitions have been updated as well. A traditional motion now "seeks to establish" rather than "claims" that no genuine issue of material fact exists. A no-evidence motion "seeks to establish" that there is no evidence of an essential element. The language is more precise, though the substantive standard remains the same.
New Deadlines from Filing Through Ruling
The most significant changes are the hard deadlines that now govern every stage of summary judgment practice.
21 days to respond. Once a motion is filed, the nonmovant has 21 days to file a response. There is no automatic extension. The clock starts when the motion reaches the clerk's office. For a plaintiff responding to a summary judgment motion, 21 days to gather evidence, secure affidavits, and brief complex liability issues is a compressed window, particularly when the defense may have spent weeks or months preparing the motion before filing it.
7 days to reply. The movant now has 7 days after the response to file a reply. This is entirely new. Under the old rule, the briefing cycle ended with the response. The reply cannot raise new summary judgment grounds, but it can address new or amended pleadings if a ground in the original motion negates an element common to a claim in the amended pleading. There is no mechanism for the nonmovant to respond to the reply.
35 to 60 days for hearing. The court cannot set a hearing or submission date within 35 days of filing, but must set one within 60 days. That window extends to 90 days if the court's docket requires it, good cause exists, or the movant agrees.
90 days for ruling. The court must sign a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date. This accountability measure is the one provision that clearly benefits both sides. Under the old rule, motions could sit on a judge's desk indefinitely.
Proposed orders required. Both parties must now submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date.
The overall effect of these deadlines is a faster, more structured process. The question is who benefits most from that speed. The party that controls the timing of the motion, and has the resources to prepare it on their schedule, enters the process with a built-in advantage.
Stricter Evidence Standards
The amended rule changes how evidence must be presented.
Traditional motions must now "state the specific grounds in support of the motion, and produce any evidence in support." Under the prior rule, movants could sometimes file motions with conclusory grounds and thin supporting evidence. The new standard requires more specificity.
The rule introduces a new section that explicitly lists acceptable evidence forms, including deposition transcripts, opposing party pleadings, interrogatory answers and admissions, affidavits and declarations, stipulations, and other authenticated evidence. Codifying these categories gives both sides clearer guidance, but it also creates additional procedural grounds for challenging evidence that does not fit neatly into a listed category.
A new provision allows evidence to be "produced by reference" by citing it and identifying where it can be found in the court's file. This is a practical convenience for well-organized litigants. It can also become a problem for any party that is not tracking every document in the clerk's file closely.
Late-filed evidence may be considered if the court indicates its consideration in the record. This is a narrow exception, and relying on it is risky.
The rule also addresses defective affidavits. Defects in form are not grounds for reversal unless the objecting party specifically identifies the defect and the opposing party has an opportunity, but refuses, to correct it. This places a premium on catching technical deficiencies in real time. Missing one means losing that argument on appeal.
The Damages Carve-Out
One of the most consequential additions is a new standard for partial summary judgment. The court must grant a traditional motion if the movant shows that, "except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
That phrase, "except as to the amount of damages," is new. It allows defendants to obtain summary judgment on liability while leaving only the question of damages for trial.
In practice, this changes what the jury hears. When a defendant concedes liability through partial summary judgment, the trial becomes a damages-only proceeding. The jury does not hear evidence about the defendant's conduct, the decisions that led to the injury, or the full circumstances of what happened. They are asked to put a number on harm without the context of how and why that harm occurred.
Plaintiff's attorneys should expect to see this provision used aggressively. Defendants and their insurers have long sought ways to separate the liability narrative from the damages determination. This rule now gives them an explicit procedural tool to do so. The response will need to focus on demonstrating that genuine fact issues exist not just on the elements of liability, but on the conduct and circumstances that inform how a jury evaluates damages.
Where These Rules Came From
The 2026 amendments are part of a broader pattern of procedural changes in Texas that have reshaped civil litigation over the past three decades.
The 2026 comment to the rule states that "other than the deadline changes, Rule 166a's rewrite is not intended to substantively change the law." But several provisions go beyond the deadline structure. A formal reply mechanism changes the briefing dynamic. A damages carve-out creates a new category of partial summary judgment. And codified evidence standards introduce new grounds for procedural objections.
These changes arrived through the same legislative path as prior tort reform measures. S.B. 293 and H.B. 16 were supported by many of the same organizations that backed the 2003 damage caps, the changes to venue rules that followed, and the mandatory prerequisites that now apply to certain categories of claims. The Texas Civil Justice League and Texans for Lawsuit Reform have been open about their goal of reducing the number of cases that reach a jury. These amendments advance that goal through procedural structure rather than substantive law.
The result is a summary judgment process that moves faster, requires more procedural compliance, and gives the moving party new tools. For plaintiff's attorneys managing large caseloads, every new requirement demands preparation and vigilance. Mastering the new deadlines, evidence standards, and briefing structure is not optional.
New Obligations on Courts and Clerks
The amended rule also imposes requirements on the courts themselves. When a summary judgment motion is filed, the clerk must immediately call it to the court's attention. The court must promptly set it for hearing or submission and notify the parties.
The court must record in the docket the date the motion was heard or submitted and sign a written ruling within 90 days. No oral testimony is permitted at the hearing. If a party wants oral argument, the request must appear on the title page of the motion or response.
These provisions create a system of accountability that did not exist before. Cases will no longer stall at the summary judgment stage, which benefits every litigant regardless of which side they are on.
What Stays the Same
The core standards for summary judgment remain intact. A traditional motion still requires the movant to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists. A no-evidence motion still shifts the burden to the respondent to produce evidence raising a genuine issue on the challenged elements.
The 1997 framework for no-evidence motions continues to apply. The motion must be specific in challenging the evidentiary support for an element of a claim or defense. General no-evidence challenges and conclusory motions are still not authorized.
What This Means for Your Case
If you have been hurt in an accident or by someone else's negligence, summary judgment is the procedure the other side will use to try to resolve your case before a jury hears it. Under the new rules, that process moves faster and has more procedural requirements than before.
The most important thing you can do is keep thorough records. Document your medical treatment, your expenses, your lost wages, and how your injuries have affected your daily life. The more complete your evidence is, the stronger your position when a summary judgment motion is filed.
These procedural changes make experienced legal representation more important than ever. The timeline for responding to a summary judgment motion is now measured in days. Your attorney needs to know these rules and be ready to act the moment a motion is filed.
Moving Forward
The 2026 amendments to Rule 166a are now the law. At Medina & Medina, we have studied these changes closely and are fully prepared to protect our clients' rights under the new framework.
If you have questions about how these changes affect your case, or if you have been injured and need legal representation, contact us for a free consultation. We represent injured Texans every day, and procedural changes will not change our commitment to making sure our clients get their day in court.
About the Author
Israel MedinaFounding partner at Medina & Medina, Israel Medina is a personal injury attorney serving families across Texas.
View Full ProfileNeed Legal Help?
This article provides general information. If you have questions about your specific situation, contact us for a free consultation.
Related Articles
The Stowers Doctrine. How Texas Law Forces Insurance Companies to Settle Within Policy Limits
When a Texas insurance company refuses a reasonable settlement demand within policy limits, it gambles with its own insured's financial future. The Stowers doctrine gives injured Texans a powerful tool to hold insurers accountable, even in cases with multiple claimants and layered insurance policies.
Read more →What to Do Immediately After a Car Accident in Texas
The steps you take immediately after a car accident can significantly impact your injury claim. Learn what to do to protect your rights.
Read more →Understanding Texas Comparative Fault Laws
Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule. Learn how this affects your personal injury claim and potential compensation.
Read more →