Nathan D. Albert and Chisholm Trail Redi-Mix, LLC v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company, Davoil, Inc and William S. Davis, 10-19-00084-CV

Nathan D. Albert bought a ten‑acre, landlocked tract and formed Chisholm Trail Redi‑Mix, LLC to operate a concrete plant on it; access relied on a gravel railroad crossing across Fort Worth & Western Railroad (FWWR) property.
Albert and Chisholm sued FWWR (May 2016) for a declaratory judgment that an easement existed; FWWR counterclaimed for trespass and sought an injunction.
In June 2017 Albert and Chisholm added Davoil (owner of FWWR) and William S. Davis (Davoil president) and asserted tort claims (fraud, tortious interference, aiding/encouraging, civil conspiracy).
Discovery disputes and deposition scheduling failed; defendants moved for no‑evidence and traditional summary judgment on the tort claims (Sept. 2017) and to sever those claims; the trial court severed the tort claims and denied a continuance of the first summary‑judgment hearing.
The severed tort case was later dismissed for want of prosecution; after a dismissal notice defendants re‑set the summary‑judgment hearing, the trial court sustained defendants’ objections to plaintiffs’ summary evidence and granted summary judgment on all tort claims.
On appeal Albert and Chisholm argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance because they lacked adequate time for discovery and (2) summary judgment was improper because their evidence raised fact issues; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance of a no‑evidence summary‑judgment hearing for lack of adequate discovery	Albert: discovery was not adequate because tort claims/parties were added later and they needed more time/depositions	Defs: discovery was sufficient; movants timely sought summary judgment; plaintiffs gave no affidavit explaining materiality of sought discovery	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; plaintiffs’ verified motion failed to explain purpose/materiality of additional discovery or what the depositions would prove
Whether summary judgment was improper because plaintiffs’ evidence raised fact issues as to tort claims	Albert: their summary judgment proof created genuine issues on elements of each tort claim	Defs: trial court sustained objections to plaintiffs’ evidence; appellants’ briefing on appeal failed to cite the record or legal authority	Affirmed — appellants’ appellate argument was inadequately briefed (waived); court not required to search record or make the appellant’s argument

Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and nonexclusive factors for denying continuance to permit discovery)
Dishner v. Huitt‑Zollars, Inc., 162 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (adequate time for discovery under Rule 166a(i) is case‑specific and nonmovant must file affidavit or verified motion explaining need for further discovery)
Arredondo v. Rodriguez, 198 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.) (appellant must specifically identify supporting proof in the record rather than expect the court to search)
Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (failure to adequately brief an issue can waive appellate review; court not required to search record)
Tello v. Bank One, N.A., 218 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (appellate courts will not act as an appellant’s advocate by conducting research or developing arguments)