The State of Texas v. Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents U.S. Currency ($3,774.28); Ten Thousand, One Hundred Seventy-Six Dollars and One Cent U.S. Currency ($10,176.01); Thirty-Three Thousand, Three Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents U.S. Currency ($33,349.86); And Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Nineteen Dollars U.S. Currency ($9,619.00), 713 S.W.3d 381

The State of Texas seized multiple bank accounts and cash from Oljine Noguez and Manuel Zepeda Mendoza, alleging involvement in opioid trafficking and commenced civil-forfeiture actions.
The State’s original forfeiture notices included a sworn declaration and a lengthy affidavit from the investigating officer, Bryan Bacon, as required by statute.
Nearly two years later, Claimants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), arguing the State had no proof the funds were tied to felonious conduct.
The State’s response referenced Officer Bacon’s affidavit (already on file) but did not attach it, summarizing key portions presumed to create a fact issue.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Claimants, holding the State was required to attach the affidavit to its response, but the order was later appealed after a procedural clarification.
The court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding it was not necessary to attach already filed evidence if the response sufficiently directed the court to it.

Issue	State’s Argument	Claimants’ Argument	Held
Was the no-evidence motion properly specific?	Motion was too vague and lumped elements together.	Motion sufficiently identified challenged elements of the forfeiture claim.	Motion was sufficiently specific.
Was the State required to attach the affidavit to its response?	No; referencing previously filed evidence suffices under Rule 166a(i).	Yes; attachment was necessary for the evidence to be considered.	Attachment not required if evidence is sufficiently referenced.
Did the State’s response sufficiently direct the court to record evidence?	Yes; the affidavit was specifically identified and relevant portions summarized.	No; response lacked pinpoint citations and was too general.	Response sufficiently directed the court to evidence.
Can evidence attached to pleadings be considered on summary judgment?	Yes; as long as it is part of the record and properly referenced.	No; evidence attached to pleadings is not competent summary judgment evidence.	Properly referenced evidence in the record can be considered.

Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 2004) (summary judgment evidence attached to a motion or record is considered if it creates a fact issue)
Lance v. Robinson, 543 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. 2018) (prior-filed evidence can be considered on summary judgment even if not re-attached)
Regency Field Servs., LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. 2021) (pleadings alone are not summary judgment evidence, but proper attachments may be considered)
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (mere reference to evidence is not enough; must discuss how it supports or defeats a material fact)
G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (explains the purpose and mechanics of summary judgment in Texas)