Opinion ID: 1660917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: star's procedural issue

Text: Star contends that the summary judgment in its favor should be affirmed on the ground that Stone filed nothing in opposition to the particular motion for summary judgment granted by the trial court. Stone, however, had previously filed its opposition materials in response to a similar, unsuccessful motion for summary judgment previously filed by Star challenging Stone's same cross-claims; and Stone also filed its own motion for summary judgment, properly supported by evidentiary materials, immediately after Star filed its last motion for summary judgment; and the trial judge considered and decided the two motions for summary judgmentStar's last and Stone'sboth directed to Stone's cross-claims against Startogether, and granted Star's and overruled Stone's. Thus, Star's contention before us exalts form over substance. Stone's evidentiary materials were properly before the trial court.