Skip to Content
The Supreme Court of Texas approved amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a, modifying Texas’s summary judgment procedure in several important ways. After public comments on the proposed amendments, the Court made the final version of the amendments effective on March 1, 2026. The amended rule is designed to provide clarity and uniformity in summary judgment motion practice, but it is not intended to change previously established standards. The amended rule still allows movants to seek summary judgment under the existing no-evidence or traditional motion standards, and movants may still choose to combine both theories of relief in a combined motion for summary judgment.
BRIEFING DEADLINES
The amended rule requires the non-movant’s response to be filed within 21 days after the motion is filed, except on leave of court or agreement of the parties. The movant’s reply is then due within seven days after the filing of the non-movant’s response, except on leave of court or agreement of the parties. This new timeline counts forward from the date the motion is filed, as opposed to backward from the date of a hearing. A key practical consideration of the new deadlines counting forward from the filing of the motion instead of backward from the date a hearing is set is that movants will receive non-movants’ responses earlier than before, allowing more time for movants to consider the arguments in the response before the hearing.
MANDATORY COURT DEADLINES
The amended rule sets mandatory deadlines for hearing or submission dates and for rulings, calculated forward from the date the motion was filed. The court cannot set a hearing or submission date earlier than 35 days after the date the motion is filed. However, the court must set the hearing or submission date within 60 days of the motion being filed. That deadline can be extended to 90 days if the court’s docket requires, good cause is shown, or the movant agrees to extend the deadline.
After the hearing or submission date, the court must issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date. These deadlines promote efficiency in the summary judgment process and help prevent motions from remaining pending for many months.
OTHER AMENDMENTS TO RULE 166a
The amended rule provides uniform naming requirements for motions for summary judgment, requiring motions to be titled as “Traditional,” “No Evidence,” or “Combined.” However, the amended rule clearly states that incorrect naming is not grounds for denying the motion.
Upon filing the motion, the clerk of court must immediately call the motion to the court’s attention, and the court must then set the motion for hearing or submission within the deadlines discussed above.
The amended rule allows the court to consider evidence that is “late-filed” so long as the court indicates that it is considering such evidence in the record.
BEST LITIGATION PRACTICES AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The amended rule is designed to provide uniformity, efficiency, and clarity to summary judgment motion practice. Litigators should immediately update their briefing and calendaring procedures to match the deadlines discussed above. Litigators should be prepared for more expedited rulings on summary judgment motions due to the mandatory deadlines the amended rule places on courts.
Additionally, because the court is required to set motions for submissions or hearings upon receiving the filing, it is recommended that movants notice a hearing date immediately after filing the motion to ensure availability for the hearing.
Another practical consideration is that courts may be heavily burdened by the new hearing and ruling deadlines, and courts struggling to meet a deadline to issue a ruling may deny a motion for summary judgment if they do not have enough time to review the arguments before the ruling deadline.
The streamlined requirements for hearing dates also limit the viability of litigants filing, but not setting for hearing, motions for summary judgment in advance of mediation as a negotiation tactic. This is true because the courts are now forced to set the motion for hearing on their own.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g) allows courts to use pretrial conferences to rule on a variety of issues, including issues on which reasonable minds cannot disagree. Rule 166(g) will not bring cases to complete resolution in the way a motion for summary judgment can, but it can be used to strategically limit the scope of a dispute prior to mediation. Courts have more flexibility in issuing their rulings under Rule 166(g), meaning its use may become more prominent for deciding preliminary issues before trial.
CONCLUSION
The amended rule is intended to clarify and streamline the often-confusing summary judgment motion practice. However, the rule may result in more motions being denied because courts may be forced to issue rulings by the deadline and deny motions they are unable to review more closely. Additionally, defendants will have to carefully decide whether to file a motion for summary judgment prior to mediation because it will start the clock for a ruling. We will continue to monitor the legal landscape to determine the real-world effect of the new rules.
