Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 490, 493 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, pet. denied). Although the nonmov-ant is not required to “needlessly duplicate evidence already found in the court’s file,” he is required to make sure the evidence is properly before the trial court for its consideration in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Saenz, 999 S.W.2d at 494. “[A] nonmovant does not meet this requirement by the mere existence in the court’s file of a response to an earlier summary judgment motion.” Id. Because the affidavit dated July 28, 2004 was neither attached to or referenced in the response to the no-evidence summary judgment, it was not before the trial court when it granted the motion and this Court will not consider it. See also Trejo v. Laredo Nat. Bank, 185 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.)(<HOLDING>). The only documents specifically referenced in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing (B) holding that defendant cannot raise the statute of limitations defense in a noevidence summary judgment motion which otherwise shifts the evidentiary burden (C) recognizing the court must grant a noevidence motion if the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact (D) holding photographs attached to a response to second noevidence summary judgment motion were not before court when it ruled on first noevidence motion (E) holding that evidence attached to noevidence motion shall not be considered but motion should not be disregarded or treated as traditional motion
Output (English): holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing