a summary judgment order does not specify the grounds upon which the ruling was made, the reviewing court will affirm the judgment if any one of the theories advanced in the motion are meritorious. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 380 (Tex.1993); Carr, 776 S.W.2d at 569; Hall v. Tomball Nursing Ctr., Inc., 926 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). By analogy, on appeal from the denial of a summary judgment, we may reverse and render judgment if any of the grounds stated in the movant’s motion are meritorious. Because we have determined that appellant negated the element of actual malice, we need not consider the other grounds raised in the motion and in this appeal. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION Texas has long been committed
holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court holding that courts of appeals should consider all summary judgment grounds that are necessary for final disposition of the appeal holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal