With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (stating that “[a] docket entry may supply facts in certain situations”); Energo, 722 S.W.2d at 151 n. 2 (interpreting the “certain situations” referred to in Snell to be limited to clerical errors in judgments or orders); see also Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607, 611 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied) (discussing Snell and Energo). Typically, the cases that have discussed the use of a docket sheet on appeal involve situations where the only evidence of a trial court’s order or judgment is found in the docket sheet or where the movant seeks to use the docket sheet to impeach an order or judgment. Under these circumstances, the docket sheet cannot be used to show the existence of an order or judgment or to impeach an order or judgment. See, e.g., Frazier, 987 S.W.2d at 608 & 611 (<HOLDING>); Pickell v. Guaranty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 917

A: holding that docket sheet which stated that plaintiff did not submit any evidence to contest elements of defendants motion for summary judgment when in fact plaintiff had timely filed two affidavits to contest motion could not be used to impeach judgment entered by trial court that stated that court had reviewed competent summary judgment evidence on file
B: holding that the plaintiff does not contest and therefore concedes defendants facts in support of summary judgment
C: holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion
D: holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing
A.