Superseded Admissions: Implications for Family Law Litigators in Summary Judgment Proceedings
City of Houston v. Harris, 24-0833, October 31, 2025.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of Texas denied review, leaving intact the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ holding that superseded admissions—though no longer conclusive judicial admissions—may nevertheless constitute competent summary-judgment evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The denial preserves a split with the First Court of Appeals and leaves trial courts in Houston-region cases without a uniform rule on whether amended admissions can be treated as summary-judgment evidence.
Relevance to Family Law
Although the underlying dispute arises from a claims-act tort case, the procedural rule at issue—whether a superseded admission can serve as evidentiary support opposing summary judgment—has direct consequences for family-law practice.
Admissions about parenting, custody, financial ownership, debts, valuations, and conduct that are later amended can still be used to defeat or repel summary-judgment and no-evidence motions. That affects strategies in divorce asset division, summary adjudication of liability issues (e.g., in enforcement or modification proceedings), and any custody or family-violence-related matters where pleadings or discovery responses may contain admissions that an adverse party later seeks to withdraw or amend.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute began after a Houston police officer, driving a city-owned vehicle, collided with Ashley Harris. In initial responses to requests for admission, the City conceded the officer was acting within the scope of employment. After further discovery and with leave of the trial court, the City amended its admission to a denial. The City then moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds, arguing the officer acted outside the scope of employment. The trial court denied summary judgment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the superseded (original) admissions, while no longer conclusive, still constituted evidence sufficient to raise a genuine fact issue. The City sought review.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the appellate ruling intact. Justice Young filed a concurrence explaining the appellate split and expressing doubt that amending an admission should automatically create a fact issue, but he agreed the case was not the right vehicle for resolving the conflict.
Issues Decided
The court process left in place the following legal determinations by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals: Whether a superseded admission—an admission later withdrawn or amended with leave of court—may nonetheless be treated as summary-judgment evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court’s denial of review did not resolve the conflict between the Houston courts of appeals, but it permitted the Fourteenth Court’s view to remain controlling in its jurisdiction.
Rules Applied
The appellate decision rests on established summary-judgment standards wherein the movant must show there is no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while evidence presented by the opponent that raises a fact issue defeats summary judgment.
The opinion engages the line of authority treating requests for admission as binding judicial admissions unless withdrawn or amended with leave; but it recognizes that once amended, the old admission ceases to be conclusive. The legal tension is whether the superseded statement nonetheless remains admissible and competent as evidence for purposes of summary-judgment practice.
The Fourteenth Court treated the superseded admission as admissible evidence; the First Court (Valdez v. City of Houston) reached the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court declined to take up the conflict, so the split remains unresolved at the highest level.
Application
The Fourteenth Court analyzed the sequence: An initial admission that the officer acted within the scope of employment, a later amendment to deny that fact (granted by the trial court), and then the City’s motion for summary judgment asserting the officer was acting outside any scope.
The appellate court reasoned that although the amendment removed the admission’s conclusiveness as a judicial admission, the original admission nevertheless qualified as evidence. That evidence, combined with the record, created a fact question whether the officer was within the scope of employment — meaning the summary-judgment movant failed to eliminate a genuine dispute. In short, the court treated the superseded admission like any other piece of evidence that the nonmovant could rely on to defeat summary judgment. The Supreme Court’s denial of review left that application undisturbed and therefore left the Fourteenth Court’s evidentiary approach binding in its jurisdiction.
Holding
The practical holding left standing by the Supreme Court’s denial is that a superseded admission can be treated as evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This means that, at least in the Fourteenth Court’s jurisdiction, the withdrawal or amendment of an admission (even if properly granted) does not automatically eradicate the evidentiary force of the earlier statement for summary-judgment purposes. In a separate concurrence, Justice Young signaled skepticism that simply amending an admission should create a fact issue, observed the existing intra-city appellate split with the First Court, and explained that the issue warrants future review in a better vehicle—thus leaving open the possibility that the Supreme Court will take the question up later.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, the decision (as left intact by the Supreme Court) changes risk-calculus and procedural tactics. Initial admissions about ownership, liabilities, income, parenting time, or allegations of misconduct—even if later amended with the trial court’s permission—may still be used by an adversary to resist summary judgment. Practitioners should therefore treat requests for admission and initial responses as potentially enduring evidentiary flotsam; a later amendment may not eliminate the prejudicial effect of the original statement.
Conversely, when seeking to amend admissions, do not assume the amendment will erase the prior admission for every procedural purpose; tailor your motion to amend and your briefing to preserve arguments about admissibility, timeliness, and prejudice. Finally, because the Supreme Court left the split unresolved, be mindful of venue and which appellate district’s precedent will likely control.
Checklists
When Amending Admissions
- Before moving to amend, evaluate whether the original admission could be used later to oppose summary judgment or other dispositive relief.
- In your motion to amend, expressly address admissibility of the superseded admission for other procedural purposes and explain why any prejudice is manageable.
- Seek a hearing and create a full record justifying the amendment (why initial response was made, why amendment is necessary, and why it is not sought for tactical delay).
Responding to Opponent’s Superseded Admissions
- Preserve objections to admissibility at the summary-judgment stage (timeliness, hearsay, relevance, authentication); do not rely solely on the argument that the admission was amended.
- File a motion to strike or an affidavit contesting the factual assertion and, if appropriate, move for sanctions or other relief if the admission was false or coerced.
- Use the superseded admission as a factual hook in summary-judgment response affidavits or live testimony, corroborating it where possible with documents or deposition testimony.
Summary-Judgment Strategy in Family Cases
- When defending a no-evidence or traditional summary judgment, assemble any superseded admissions into the summary-judgment appendix as potential evidence to create a fact issue and counter the movant’s assertions.
- For movants seeking summary judgment, anticipate the risk that prior admissions will be used against you; develop independent, admissible evidence to negate essential elements rather than relying solely on amended discovery responses.
- Consider filing alternative motions (e.g., motion to restrict consideration of superseded admissions) and preserve appellate issues by obtaining rulings on admissibility.
Discovery Management and Preventive Steps
- Treat requests for admission as high-risk discovery; instruct clients carefully and pre-clear admissions with counsel to avoid careless concessions.
- Maintain contemporaneous notes explaining the context of any admissions and the reasons for later amendments to support credibility and to rebut claims of bad faith.
- Consider sequencing discovery and summary-judgment deadlines such that motions to amend admissions, if necessary, are resolved well before summary-judgment briefing to minimize disputes over timeliness and prejudice.
Citation
City of Houston v. Harris, No. 24-0833 (Tex. Oct. 31, 2025).
Full Opinion
Share this content:
