affirmed only if the record establishes that the mov-ant has conclusively proved all essential elements of the movant’s cause of action or defense as a matter of law. Clear Creek Basin, 589 S.W.2d at 678. IV. Existence of a Contract In her first and fourth issues, appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment based solely on her deemed admissions because no contract between appellant and appellee ever existed in the first place. Appellee served appellant with two sets of requests for admissions. Appellant answered the first set but did not timely answer the second set; the second set of admissions negated any attempt by appellant to deny the existence of a contract. See TexR. Civ. P. 198.3; Marshall v. Vise, 767 S.W.2d 699, 700 (Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s deemed admissions show that no
holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that unanswered requests for admissions are automatically deemed admitted unless court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment once admitted admission is judicial admission whether deemed or otherwise holding that even if evidence admitted in error admission must result in material prejudice to warrant reversal holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted