Sandra Wheeler and Darrin Green were involved in litigation in which Wheeler was not represented by an attorney. Green’s attorney served 64 requests for admission on Wheeler. For the most part, the requests for admission set forth substantive legal allegations that Green needed to prove in order to win the case, as opposed to being requests that sought admissions regarding purely factual matters. Wheeler provided responses to the requests but did so two days after the responses were due under applicable law of the state of Texas. Because the responses he received from Wheeler were not timely and because he took the position that the requests for admission were to be deemed admitted, Green’s attorney filed a motion for summary judgment against Wheeler. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Green. Wheeler retained an attorney and appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Wheeler then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, arguing that even though her responses to the requests for admission were submitted after the due date, the requests should not have been deemed admitted, and the lower courts should not have granted summary judgment in favor of Green. Was Wheeler correct?