OPINION
PHILLIPS, Chief Justice.This case involves the showing a defendant must make to obtain a summary judgment in Texas courts in a defamation, action brought by a public official or public figure. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant and remanded for a trial on the merits, holding that defendant had failed to establish an absence of actual malice as a matter of law. 742 S.W.2d 726. While the decision below correctly applied existing Texas case law, we overrule two prior decisions of this court to hold that, as to some of the allegedly defamatory statements in issue, defendant did negate actual malice as a matter of law. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in part and reverse in part, remanding a portion of this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
Facts
Othal E. Brand brought this action based on statements allegedly made by Dr. Ramiro Casso during and after their political contest for Mayor of McAllen. Brand, the incumbent, defeated Casso on May 9, 1981, and brought this suit on July 23 of the same year.
Brand’s original petition complained that he was injured by false and defamatory statements in two of Casso’s radio campaign advertisements. Both advertisements focused on Casso’s allegations that Brand knew of and condoned certain alleged acts of brutality by members of the McAllen Police Department. These allegations were based on testimony given in a pending federal lawsuit, Robles v. City of McAllen, No. CA B-81-58 (S.D.Tex. filed 1981), by James Borman, then senior captain of the McAllen Police Department.
In particular, Brand alleged that the following statements from the Casso ads were false and defamatory:
Brand ordered Police Captain Jim Borman, who testified this week before said judge, that Brand himself ordered him to destroy the tapes. This shows clearly that Mayor Brand gave his approval to these acts of brutality, and later he intended to destroy the evidence that indicts and convicts him.
[[Image here]]
[R]emember we cannot leave in power this barbarian Brand that allowed the brutalities and beatings of our children in the Police Department, when he himself, Brand, knew what was going on.
After the lawsuit was filed, The Nation magazine in its September 26, 1981, issue *553published several statements attributed to Casso regarding Brand. Brand timely amended his pleadings to complain of those statements as well. Specifically, he alleged that this statement was false and defamatory:
[According to Casso, “Mr. Brand tried to make a deal which would have shut the hospital doors to our city’s poor, without even notifying the citizens of the plan. Apparently, he hadn’t bothered to look at the city charter.”
Furthermore, he complained about Casso’s alleged statement that Brand ruled McAl-len like an “ayatollah” and Casso’s alleged characterization of the Brand administration as an “iron fist.”
History of the Litigation
In February, 1986, Casso moved for summary judgment, alleging that all the statements in issue were either true or substantially true, were absolutely or conditionally privileged under Article 5432 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes,1 constituted fair comment, or were made without malice. In support of this motion, Casso attached his own affidavit, together with a transcript of Captain Borman’s entire testimony in the Robles case. Brand filed a response and supporting brief, but no summary judgment proof, in response to the motion.
The trial court granted Casso’s motion in its entirety. The court of appeals, agreeing with Brand that Casso’s summary judgment proof did not negate one or more elements of Brand’s cause of action as a matter of law, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause. We granted application for writ of error to examine our standards for granting summary judgment in public figure defamation cases.
Fact vs. Opinion
Casso initially argues in this court that the statements in issue are mere opinions, and thus not defamatory. He relies on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789, 805 (1974), where the Supreme Court explained:
Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.
We do not decide this point, however, because Casso has failed to preserve this issue for our determination. Nothing in his motion for summary judgment, or in Brand’s reply, suggested to the trial court that the statements in question were mere opinions, and therefore, not actionable. Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, all theories in support of a summary judgment, as well as all opposing issues, must be presented in writing to the court at the hearing. As this court stated in Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 658 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Tex.1983): “It is axiomatic that one may not be granted judgment as a matter of law on a cause of action not addressed in a summary judgment proceeding.”
In his motion for summary judgment, Casso did assert that the statements were absolutely or conditionally privileged, but he limited this claim by a specific reference to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 5432 {repealed 1985). That statute, now codified as Section 73.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, applies only to “fair, true and impartial” accounts of various official proceedings or to the “reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of” an official act by a newspaper or other periodical. The statute simply has no applicability to a private defendant like Casso. By waiting until his application for writ of error in this *554court, Casso waived this theory. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979).
Status of the Parties
Because we must assume, for purposes of this review, that the statements in issue were capable of being defamatory, we must at the outset determine to what degree, if any, the United States Constitution or our common law precludes our state from applying its defamation laws to Casso’s alleged statements. We hold that Brand, as a public official, cannot recover unless he proves by clear and convincing evidence that Casso made false and defamatory statements about him with actual malice.
The Supreme Court has held that public officials and public figures must meet the clear and convincing burden when suing publishers or media defendants for defamation in order to preserve “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 721, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 701 (1964). As the Court explained in Gertz:
The New York Times standard defines the level of constitutional protection appropriate to the context of defamation of a public person. Those who, by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public’s attention, are properly classed as public figures and those who hold governmental office may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
418 U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. at 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d at 806-07.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide, however, whether this standard is also constitutionally required when public officials like Brand or public figures sue private individuals like Casso for defamation. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill, 133-34 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687 n. 16, 61 L.Ed.2d 411, 430 n. 16 (1979). The appropriate standard is therefore left to the states for determination. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345-48, 94 S.Ct. at 3010-11, 41 L.Ed.2d 807-10. Like the court of appeals, we have no hesitancy in requiring Brand, under Texas common law, to meet the New York Times burden of proof. 742 S.W.2d at 728. Brand himself has not questioned this standard, and we are reluctant to afford greater constitutional protection to members of the print and broadcast media than to ordinary citizens. The First Amendment affords equal dignity to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, see Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1975), and the “[i]nherent worth of ... speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777, 98 S.Ct. 1407,1416, 55 L.Ed.2d 707, 718 (1978). We, thus, join those states which have extended the New York Times standard to defamation suits by public officials and public figures against non-media defendants.2
Truth as a Matter of Law
Casso claims that summary judgment was proper because he established the truth of the statements in question as a *555matter of law.3 This argument is not persuasive. First, Casso never éven claimed, much less proved, that all of the statements in issue were true. His summary-judgment affidavit stated only that Captain Borman’s testimony established that Brand ordered the destruction of certain tapes regarding police brutality. Casso’s proof was absolutely silent about the truth or falsity of the other allegedly defamatory remarks. Moreover, Casso’s proof does not even establish the truth of Borman’s testimony. That another person has made a statement, even under oath, simply does not establish its truth as a matter of law. Casso’s proof merely goes to his own state of mind, not the truth of what he said.
Actual Malice
Casso next contends that even if the statements in question are facts and not opinions, and even if he has not established their truth, he is still entitled to summary judgment because, as a matter of law, he did not make the statements with actual malice. Since Brand must prove actual malice in order to prevail, Casso is entitled to a summary judgment as to any statement on which he can negate actual malice as a matter of law.
Casso first urges that a more liberal summary judgment standard in public figure defamation actions is required by the United States Constitution. Even if a complainant has no substantial hope of eventual vindication, the mere threat or act of filing and prosecuting a lawsuit will, he suggests, have a chilling effect on both present and future exercise of the constitutionally protected right of free speech. Casso claims that the Supreme Court recognized this constitutional component to summary judgments in public figure defamation cases in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2606, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In Liberty Lobby, the Supreme Court held that “in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.” 477 U.S. at 264,106 S.Ct. at 2613, 91 L.Ed.2d at 215. Thus, “the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not.” 477 U.S. at 255-56, 106 S.Ct. at 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d at 216.
Brand counters that Liberty Lobby was based not on constitutional requirements, but merely on federal procedure. We agree. The Court was not granting “special procedural protections to defendants” because of the type of case involved, 477 U.S. at 256 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. at 2514 n. 7, 91 L.Ed.2d at 216 n. 7 (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790-91,104 S.Ct. 1482, 1487-88, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, 813 (1984)), but merely applying general federal summary judgment rules to the particular circumstances of a public figure defamation case. As Justice Brennan observed in his dissent:
The Court’s holding today is not, of course, confined in its application to First Amendment cases_ It changes summary judgment procedure for all litigants, regardless of the substantive nature of the underlying litigation.
477 U.S. at 257-58 n. 1,106 S.Ct. at 2515 n. 1, 91 L.Ed.2d at 217-18 n. 1 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (emphasis original).
Summary judgments in federal courts are based on different assumptions, with *556different purposes, than summary judgments in Texas. In the federal system, “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 1.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2555, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 276 (1986). Thus, federal courts place responsibilities on both movants and non-movants in the summary judgment process. In Celotex, decided on the same day as Liberty Lobby, the plurality opinion of the Supreme Court said:
Under [Fed.R.Civ.P.j 56c, summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d at 273.
Texas law, of course, is different. While the language of our rule is similar, our interpretation of that language is not. We use summary judgments merely “to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims and untenable defenses,” City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 n. 5 (Tex.1979), and we never shift the burden of proof to the non-movant unless and until the movant has “establish[ed] his entitlement to a summary judgment on the issues expressly presented to the trial court by conclusively proving all essential elements of his cause of action or defense as a matter of law.” Id. at 678.
Liberty Lobby and Celotex involve only the application of federal procedural law. Nothing in either decision compels us to abandon our established summary judgment procedure either generally or in the particular facts of this case.
Casso next urges that the Texas Constitution requires a different summary judgment standard in defamation cases. Again, we disagree. While we have recently recognized the possibility that our state free speech guarantee may be broader than the corresponding federal guarantee, see O’Quinn v. State Bar, 763 S.W.2d 397, 402 (Tex.1988), that broader protection, if any, cannot come at the expense of a defamation claimant’s right to redress. Unlike the United States Constitution, which contains no explicit guarantee of the right to sue for defamation, the Texas Constitution expressly protects the bringing of reputational torts. In the guarantee of free speech itself, our Constitution states:
Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege....
Tex. Const, art. I, § 8 (emphasis added). And in guaranteeing access to the courts, our Constitution further provides:
All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.
Tex. Const. art. I, § 13 (emphasis added).
These provisions must be given effect. While we may on occasion grant protections to defamation defendants beyond those required in the United States Constitution, as we have today in requiring public official and public figure plaintiffs to prove their actions against private defendants under the New York Times standard, we have based those decisions on common law, not constitutional, grounds. We find nothing in the Texas Constitution which compels a different summary judgment procedure for public figure defamation cases.
Moreover, we see no overriding policy reasons for modifying our summary judgment standards under the common law. While some commentators have urged us to adopt the current federal approach to summary judgments generally, e.g., Hittner & Liberato, Summary Judgments in *557Texas, 20 St. Mary’s L.J. 243, 303-05 (1989), we believe our own procedure eliminates patently unmeritorious cases while giving due regard for the right to a jury determination of disputed fact questions. Tex. Const. art. I, § 15; art. V, § 10. And although we recognize the constitutional considerations for encouraging free and untrammeled expression on matters of public concern or interest, we believe the rigorous burden of the New York Times standard adequately protects those interests. See Moffatt v. Brown, 751 P.2d 939, 942-43 (Alaska 1988); Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co., 104 N.J. 125, 156-57, 516 A.2d 220, 236 (1986). We respectfully disagree with those jurisdictions that have applied Liberty Lobby to their own summary judgment practice, whether as a matter of constitutional law or state procedure.4
Interestingly, Casso never attempts to support the summary judgment under current Texas law. This is understandable in light of two recent decisions of this court. In Beaumont Enterprise & Journal v. Smith, 687 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.1985), the defendants offered as summary judgment proof the reporter’s affidavit that she believed the contents of her article to be factually accurate and true. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed. This court affirmed, stating that the reporter’s affidavit “as to her own state of mind is not evidence that could have been readily controverted; therefore it is not evidence that will support a summary judgment.” Id. at 730. The following year, we reaffirmed Beaumont Enterprise in Bessent v. Times-Herald Printing Co., 709 S.W.2d 635 (Tex.1986). In that case, the defendant supported its motion for summary judgment with an affidavit from its vice-president, stating that the allegedly defamatory article was adopted from a UPI release. The affidavit set forth that UPI articles were routinely used “without substantive changes,” and that UPI was a “reliable, accurate, and prestigious news service with a world-wide reputation for truth and accuracy.” Id. at 635. The trial court granted summary judgment and the court of appeals affirmed, but we reversed, stating:
[Defendant’s] affidavit on the reliability of the UPI wire service is very similar to the affidavit this court considered in Beaumont Enterprise_ Both newspapers’ affidavits were by interested party witnesses; each asserted the reliability and accuracy of admittedly false statements; and the assertions in each case were based on knowledge of facts under the control of the newspapers’ employees. These affidavits cannot be readily controverted. As in Beaumont Enterprise ..., we hold that [defendant’s] affidavit made to establish the absence of malice will not support a summary judgment.
Id. at 636.
Casso’s affidavit, likewise, is similar to the affidavits in Beaumont Enterprise and Bessent. Under those decisions, summary judgment is virtually impossible to obtain in any action for defamation. If we follow them, as did the court of appeals, 742 S.W.2d at 727-29, we, too, must remand to the district court for a trial on the merits.
We are convinced that would be a mistake. Even in those states which apply traditional summary judgment standards to defamation cases, there is a recognition that courts must give “careful judicial at*558tention to summary judgment motions in the context of the first amendment.” Moffatt, 751 P.2d at 946. As the New Jersey Supreme Court explained:
The dispositive question, then, is whether there is a genuine issue that any of the defendants displayed reckless disregard in publishing the two factual statements. Because the issue implicates the defendants’ state of mind, we approach it with due respect for the difficulty of granting summary judgment. Nonetheless, we recognize also that summary judgment practice is particularly well-suited for the determination of libel actions, the fear of which can inhibit comment on matters of public concern.
Dairy Stores, 104 N.J. at 157, 516 A.2d at 236 (citation omitted).
While we agree with the courts of Alaska and New Jersey that the Constitution does not mandate preferential treatment for the summary judgment motions of defamation defendants, we share their concern that summary judgment procedures not operate to discourage constitutional rights. In our opinion, the approach of Beaumont Enterprise and Bessent, far from being sensitive to free speech and free press concerns, actually treats defamation defendants more harshly than movants for summary judgment in most other types of cases. While this may not be unconstitutional, it is certainly insensitive to the vital liberty issues involved.
Our summary judgment rule permits the granting of a summary judgment on the basis of uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested witness if that evidence “is clear, positive and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). The difficulty arises in the application of the final prong. If read too literally, as in Beaumont Enterprise and Bes-sent, summary judgment becomes more difficult to obtain as the plaintiffs opportunity to prevail on the merits becomes more remote. Those actions with the least chance of success are the most likely to be accorded a full trial. This stands the purpose of summary judgment on its head.
We believe that “could have been readily controverted” does not simply mean that the movant’s summary judgment proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted.5 Rather, it means that testimony at issue is of a nature which can be effectively countered by opposing evidence. If the credibility of the affiant or deponent is likely to be a dispositive factor in the resolution of the case, then summary judgment is inappropriate. On the other hand, if the non-movant must, in all likelihood, come forth with independent evidence to prevail, then summary judgment may well be proper in the absence of such controverting proof.
To prevail at trial, a plaintiff must show that defendant made a false and defamatory statement of fact “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d at 706. Actual malice, as used in defamation cases, is a term of art which is separate and distinct from traditional common law malice. It does not include ill will, spite or evil motive, but rather requires “sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325, 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 267 (1968). It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve defendant’s testimony. Rather, the plaintiff must offer clear and convincing affirmative proof to support a recovery. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255-56, 106 S.Ct. at 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d at 216. While it is conceivable that a defendant’s trial testimony, under the rigors of cross-examination, could provide that requisite *559proof, it is more likely that plaintiff will have to secure that evidence elsewhere. If he cannot secure it during the discovery process, he is unlikely to stumble on to it at trial.
In all other types of cases, our courts do not ordinarily deny otherwise appropriate summary judgment motions because of a subjective determination that the movant’s proof cannot be readily controverted. Neither should they do in a defamation case involving a public official or public figure. We therefore overrule our decisions in Beaumont Enterprise and Bessent.
Turning finally to the facts of this case, we hold that Casso presented sufficient proof to support the summary judgment as to all the statements in the advertisements about Brand’s destruction of the tapes. Casso’s affidavit establishes as a matter of law that he did not believe the allegations were false and did not act with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity in repeating those allegations in his campaign advertising. As Brand presented no controverting proof, summary judgment as to those statements was proper.
However, Casso has failed to negate actual malice as to the statements attributed to him in the magazine article. His affidavit states:
[I]t is not my fault what THE NATION MAGAZINE and its writers stated in their article. That is another case, and I understand that a judgment has already been rendered against Brand.
At no time did I ever act with malice toward Othal Brand, and never did I make an untrue statement knowingly. I regret that he is such a sensitive person, but all I did was to make logical and justified inference from facts known to me personally.
This proof will not sustain a summary judgment under our standards. If it attempts to state that Casso did not actually make the statements, it fails because it is not sufficiently specific. If it attempts to assert the defense of collateral estoppel or res judicata, it fails because it provides no proof of such other judgment or its legal effect. Finally, if it attempts to negate actual malice, it provides no information as to Casso’s knowledge that the statements were not false or were not made with reckless disregard to their truth or falsity. In short, this proof meets none of the tests of rule 166a. It is not clear, direct, or positive, it is not free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and it could not have been readily controverted. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a. We do not say that Casso could not meet his summary judgment burden as to this part of the case; we only say that, on this record, he has failed to do so.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and return to the trial court for further proceedings that portion of the case involving Casso’s alleged statement to The Nation magazine. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals as to the radio ads and return this portion of the case to the trial court for entry of partial summary judgment.6
SPEARS, COOK, HIGHTOWER, and DOGGETT, JJ., join in this opinion. GONZALEZ and MAUZY, JJ., file a concurring and dissenting opinion. PHILLIPS, C.J., files a dissenting opinion in which COOK, J., joins. Ray, J., files a dissenting opinion. Hecht, J., not sitting.. Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, § 1, art. 5432, 39th Leg., 1925 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. 2, 1530, amended by Act approved Mar. 12, 1927, ch. 80, 40th Leg., 1927 Tex.Gen. & Spec. Laws 121, repealed by Civil Practice and Remedies Code, ch. 959, sec. 9(1), 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 3242, 3322 (currently codified as Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 73.002 (Vernon 1987)).
. See Antwerp Diamond Exch., Inc. v. Better Business Bureau, 130 Ariz. 523, 527, 637 P.2d 733, 737 (1981); Jackson v. Filliben, 281 A.2d 604, 605 (Del.1971); Mehau v. Gannett Pac. Corp., 66 Haw. 133, 143-44, 658 P.2d 312, 320 (1983); Colson v. Stieg, 89 Ill.2d 205, 212-13, 60 Ill.Dec. 449, 452-453, 433 N.E.2d 246, 249-50 (1982); Anderson v. Low Rent Housing Comm’n, 304 N.W.2d 239, 247 (Iowa), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086, 102 S.Ct. 645, 70 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); Hirman v. Rogers, 257 N.W.2d 563, 566 (Minn.1977); Williams v. Pasma, 202 Mont. 66, 75-76, 656 P.2d 212, 216-17 (1982), cert, denied, 461 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 2122, 77 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1983); Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co., 104 N.J. 125, 153, 516 A.2d 220, 234 (1986); DeCarvalho v. DaSilva, 414 A.2d 806, 812 (R.I.1980); see abo Note, The Burden of Proving Truth or Falsity in Defamation: Setting a Standard for Cases Involving Nonmedia Defendants, 62 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 812 (1987); but see Denny v. Mertz, 106 Wis.2d 636, 654, 318 N.W.2d 141, 152-53, cert denied, 459 U.S. 883, 103 S.Ct. 179, 74 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982).
. Both Casso and Brand treat truth as an affirmative defense. Under the New York Times standard, however, the plaintiff must prove that the statements are false as part of his case in chief. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. at 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d at 807; New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d at 706-07. This distinction makes no practical difference in a summary judgment proceeding, where a defendant movant bears the burden in either event, but it is of considerable importance in a trial on the merits. We need not at this time decide whether every plaintiff in any defamation case, regardless of his status or that of the defendant, must prove falsity as an element of his cause of action. See generally Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986) (private-figure plaintiffs are constitutionally required by the First Amendment to prove falsity when suing media defendants for defamation).
. Williams v. Marcum, 519 So.2d 473, 477 (Ala. 1987); Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476, 485-91, 724 P.2d 562, 572-74 (1986); Drew v. KATV Television, Inc., 293 Ark. 555, 557, 739 S.W.2d 680, 681-82 (1987); Planned Protective Serv. v. Gorton, 200 Cal.App.3d 1, 8, 245 Cal.Rptr. 790, 793 (1988); Reed v. Northwestern Publishing Co., 124 IU.2d 495, 512, 125 Ill.Dec. 316, 324, 530 N.E.2d 474, 482 (1988); Behr v. Meredith Corp., 414 N.W.2d 339, 341 (Iowa 1987); Bussie v. Lowenthal, 535 So.2d 378, 380 n. 2 (La.1988); Haygood v. First Natl Bank, 517 So.2d 553, 555-56 (Miss.1987); Proffitt v. Greensboro News & Record, Inc., 91 N.C. App. 218, 221, 371 S.E.2d 292, 293-94 (1988); Varanese v. Gall, 35 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 518 N.E.2d 1177, 1179-81, cert. denied, — U.S.—, 108 S.Ct. 2849, 101 L.Ed.2d 886 (1988); Guntheroth v. Rodaway, 107 Wash.2d 170, 175-76, 727 P.2d 982, 985 (1986); Long v. Egnor, 346 S.E.2d 778, 785-86 (W.Va.1986); O.C.A.W. v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 748 P.2d 283, 288-89 (Wyo.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 109 S.Ct. 65, 102 L.Ed.2d 42 (1988). See also Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 510 So.2d 984 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (Anstead, J., specially concurring).
. The "could have been readily controverted” standard was first added to rule 166a by the 1978 amendments to the Texas Riiles of Civil Procedure. See Texas Supreme Court, Order of July 11, 1977 (reprinted in 40 Tex.B.J. 709, 711— 12 (1977)). It has no precise antecedent in Texas case law, see Lewisville State Bank v. Blanton, 525 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.1975), and is apparently unique to Texas practice.
. The author of the opinion disagrees with this disposition and notes his reasons in a separate dissenting opinion.