Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): summary judgments de novo. Blanchard v. Brazos Forest Products, L.P., 353 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied); Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). We consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non movant, crediting evidence favorable to the non movant if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding evidence contrary to the non movant unless reasonable jurors could not. Cunningham v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 352 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. filed). When a trial court does not specify the grounds on which the judgment is based, we will affirm the judgment if it is correct on any legal theory expressly placed at issue and supported by the evidence. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex.2001) (per curiam)(<HOLDING>). As Appellee asserted alternative grounds for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds (B) holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason (C) holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious (D) holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court (E) holding that when the grounds for the ruling are not specified we affirm if any of the theories advanced are meritorious
Output (English): holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious