The Summary Judgment Playbook Just Changed
On February 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas signed Misc. Docket No. 26-9012, finalizing the most significant overhaul of Rule 166a in nearly three decades. These amendments, which took effect on March 1, 2026, rewrite the procedural framework for summary judgment practice across every Texas trial court.
The changes stem from Senate Bill 293 and House Bill 16, both products of the 89th Texas Legislature. And while the Court's comment describes this as an effort to "modernize the rule," every plaintiff's attorney in this state should read between the lines. Procedural changes that tighten deadlines, impose new requirements on responses, and open the door to partial liability determinations are not neutral. They are the latest chapter in Texas's ongoing tort reform story, and they were designed with one side in mind.
Understanding these amendments is not optional. Every motion for summary judgment filed on or after March 1, 2026 falls under the new rule. Here is what changed, what stayed the same, and what every injured Texan and their attorney needs to know.
New Definitions and Titling Requirements
The amended Rule 166a now requires every summary judgment motion to carry a specific title. A traditional motion must be titled "Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment." A no-evidence motion must be titled "No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment." A combined motion must be titled "Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment."
The rule does note that an absent or incorrect title is not grounds for denial. But the titling requirement itself reflects a trend toward procedural formalism that tends to benefit the side with more resources. Defense firms will have these titles built into their templates on day one. Plaintiff's attorneys who are juggling dozens of cases need to make sure every filing conforms.
The definitions themselves have been rewritten as well. A traditional motion is now defined as one that "seeks to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to a claim or defense and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A no-evidence motion "seeks to establish that there is no evidence of an essential element of a claim or defense on which the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial." The shift from "claiming" to "seeks to establish" is subtle but worth noting. It frames the movant's burden in a more active, assertive light.
The New Timeline Every Litigant Must Know
The most impactful changes are the hard deadlines that now govern summary judgment practice from filing through ruling.
Response. Once a summary judgment motion is filed, the nonmovant has 21 days to respond. That clock starts ticking the day the motion hits the clerk's office, and there is no automatic extension unless the court grants leave or the parties agree. For plaintiffs defending against summary judgment, 21 days is tight. Gathering evidence, securing affidavits, and crafting legal arguments on complex liability issues takes time. This deadline rewards the defense strategy of filing motions early and often, forcing plaintiffs to scramble.
Reply. The movant now gets 7 days after the response is filed to submit a reply. This is new territory. The reply cannot raise new or independent summary judgment grounds, but it can address new or amended pleadings filed after the motion if a ground in the original motion negates an element common to a claim or defense in the amended pleading. Plaintiff's attorneys need to watch this carefully. Defendants will try to use the reply as a backdoor to expand the scope of their original motion.
Hearing and Submission. The court cannot set a hearing or submission date within 35 days of the motion's filing. This provides a floor. But the ceiling is what matters. The court must set the motion for hearing or submission within 60 days of filing. That window extends to 90 days if the court's docket requires it, good cause exists, or the movant agrees.
Ruling. The court must sign a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date. No more motions languishing on a judge's desk indefinitely. This is one change that genuinely helps both sides by creating accountability. But it also means plaintiffs have less time to hope a judge simply sets aside a problematic motion.
Proposed Orders. Both parties must now submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date. This new requirement forces each side to commit to a specific outcome in writing before the court even considers the motion.
Evidence Rules Get Sharper Teeth
The amended rule changes how evidence must be presented in summary judgment practice.
Traditional motions must now "state the specific grounds in support of the motion, and produce any evidence in support." This is a meaningful tightening. Under the prior rule, movants could sometimes file motions with conclusory grounds and thin evidence. The new language puts teeth behind the requirement to actually show your cards.
The rule also introduces a new section on evidence that explicitly lists acceptable forms. These include deposition transcripts, opposing party pleadings, interrogatory answers and admissions, affidavits and declarations, stipulations, and other authenticated evidence.
A new provision allows evidence to be "produced by reference" by making a specific reference to it and identifying where it can be found in the court's file. This streamlines the process but also creates a trap for plaintiffs who are not keeping close tabs on what is actually in the court's file.
Late-filed evidence gets its own provision as well. The court may consider late-filed evidence if the court indicates its consideration in the record. This is a narrow exception that gives judges discretion, but do not count on it. File your evidence on time.
The rule also adds protections around defective affidavits. Defects in the form of an affidavit or declaration are not grounds for reversal unless specifically pointed out by the objecting party with opportunity, but refusal, to amend. This cuts both ways. If the defense submits a sloppy affidavit, you must object specifically or you lose that argument on appeal.
The Damages Carve-Out
One of the most consequential changes is buried in the standard for granting a traditional motion. The court must grant the 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 explicitly opens the door for defendants to obtain summary judgment on liability while leaving only the question of how much to pay for trial. On its face, this may seem efficient. In practice, it strips juries of the ability to hear the full story of how an injury happened. When a jury only hears about damages without understanding the full picture of the defendant's conduct, the context that drives fair compensation disappears.
For plaintiff's attorneys, this means you will increasingly face motions that try to bifurcate liability and damages. Be prepared to argue that genuine issues of material fact exist not just on the elements of liability, but on the conduct and circumstances that juries need to evaluate damages in their full context.
The Tort Reform Thread
These amendments did not materialize out of thin air. They came from S.B. 293 and H.B. 16, passed by a legislature that has spent decades building a procedural framework that favors defendants and corporate interests.
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." That phrasing is itself revealing. The deadline changes are substantive. A 21-day response window puts pressure on plaintiff's attorneys managing heavy caseloads. A formalized reply practice gives defense counsel another bite at the apple. And a damages carve-out opens the door to partial summary judgments that fundamentally change what a jury gets to decide.
Tort reform in Texas has always worked incrementally. It does not arrive as a single bill that strips plaintiffs of all rights overnight. It arrives as a series of reasonable sounding procedural updates that, taken together over years, make it harder and harder for injured people to get their day in court. Damage caps. Changes to venue rules. Mandatory prerequisites to filing certain claims. And now, a rewritten summary judgment procedure with tighter deadlines and new tools for defendants.
Each change is framed as modernization or efficiency. Each one quietly tilts the scales. Plaintiff's attorneys cannot afford to treat these amendments as housekeeping. Learn every deadline. Master every new requirement. And understand that the defense bar helped write these rules.
What the Court Must Do Now
The amended rule imposes new obligations on courts and clerks that did not exist before. 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 the clerk must send notice to the parties of the date.
The court must record in the docket the date the motion was heard or submitted. And the court must sign a written ruling within 90 days of that date, filing it with the clerk and providing it to the parties.
No oral testimony is permitted at a summary judgment hearing. Both sides argue from their papers and evidence only. If a party wants an oral hearing, the request must appear on the title page of the motion or response.
These accountability measures are the one area where the amendments provide a clear benefit to plaintiffs. No more filing a response and waiting months or years for a ruling. The 90-day clock creates urgency for courts, which means cases move forward one way or another.
What Stays the Same
Despite the extensive rewrite, 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 and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 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, which authorizes a motion based on the assertion that after adequate discovery there is no evidence to support one or more specified elements, continues to apply. The motion must still 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 Injured Texans Should Know
If you have been hurt in an accident or by someone else's negligence, summary judgment is the legal procedure the other side will use to try to get your case dismissed before a jury ever hears it. They file a motion arguing that the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find in your favor.
The new rules make this process faster and more structured. That means your legal team needs to be prepared to respond quickly and with strong evidence. You can help by keeping thorough records of your medical treatment, your expenses, your lost wages, and how your injuries have affected your daily life. The more documented your case is, the harder it is for the defense to argue there is "no evidence."
These procedural changes are exactly why having an experienced attorney matters. The timeline for responding to a summary judgment motion is now measured in days, not weeks or months. Your attorney needs to know these rules thoroughly and be ready to fight back the moment a motion is filed.
Moving Forward
The 2026 amendments to Rule 166a are now the law. Every summary judgment motion filed on or after March 1, 2026 operates under the new framework. At Medina & Medina, we have studied these changes closely and are fully prepared to protect our clients' rights under the amended rule.
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 fight for injured Texans every day, and we are not going to let procedural changes written to benefit defendants stop us from securing the justice our clients deserve.