Supreme Court
State of Texas v. $3,774.28
- Case number: 24-0258
- Legal category: Procedure-Pretrial
- Subtype: Summary Judgment
- Set for oral argument: February 18, 2025
Case Summary
At issue in this case is whether, in deciding a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the trial court should have considered an affidavit that was on file with the court but not attached to the nonmovant’s response.
The State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings for bank accounts related to an opioid trafficking operation. The claimants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment on the State’s claim that the accounts were used or intended to be used in the commission of a felony, making the accounts contraband. The State’s response to the motion summarized an affidavit from the investigating law enforcement officer. The affidavit was attached to the State’s original notice of forfeiture proceedings but was not attached to its response to the no-evidence motion.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the claimants. At a hearing on a related motion for leave in which the State sought to have the affidavit considered, the trial court said that it understood the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to require all evidence considered in a no-evidence summary judgment to be attached to the summary judgment response. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the rules require attachment.
The State filed a petition for review. It argues that the court of appeals erred by concluding that there is an attachment requirement in the no-evidence rule. The State also argues that its references to and discussion of the affidavit in its response were sufficient to direct the trial court to the affidavit, which was indisputably on file with the court. Accordingly, the State argues that because the affidavit raises a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the claimants.
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.