as a ground for summary judgment in the trial court. Appellants' summary judgment motion outlines the issues before the lower court as follows: "1. Whether [appellants] are entitled to absolute legislative immunity, [and] 2. Whether [appellants] are alternatively entitled to a qualified immunity.” (emphasis added). Appellants did not argue below that they were entitled to absolute judicial immunity in connection with their actions in this case. Additionally, the summary judgment evidence offered in support of their motion does not address this issue. Because appellants failed to raise absolute judicial immunity as a ground for summary judgment in their motion, we conclude they cannot rely on this ground on appeal. See McConnell v. Southside I.S.D., 858 S.W.2d 337, 339 & n. 2 (Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we do not address the
holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law holding that summary judgment motion itself must expressly present reasons entitling movant to summary judgment holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that a summary judgment motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion