{
  "name": "Fifteenth Court of Appeals: The Business Decisions",
  "url": "https://www.kraus.law/trackers/fifteenth-court-of-appeals/",
  "creator": "Charles R. Kraus",
  "publisher": "Kraus Law PLLC",
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "licenseName": "CC BY 4.0",
  "citation": "Charles R. Kraus, Fifteenth Court of Appeals: The Business Decisions, Kraus Law (last updated August 28, 2026), https://www.kraus.law/trackers/fifteenth-court-of-appeals/.",
  "lastVerified": "2026-08-28",
  "rowCount": 28,
  "columns": [
    "id",
    "Decision",
    "Number",
    "Decided",
    "From",
    "Proceeding",
    "Outcome",
    "What it holds",
    "Decision (tag)"
  ],
  "notes": {
    "id": "Anchors a row on the page. https://www.kraus.law/trackers/fifteenth-court-of-appeals/#<id> links straight to it.",
    "arrays": "A value given as a list was two facts on separate lines in the table. In the CSV those are joined with ' | '.",
    "sourceColumns": "A column ending in '(source)' holds the primary-source link that cell points at."
  },
  "rows": [
    {
      "id": "15-24-00135",
      "Decision": "In re Westdale Asset Management, Ltd., et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-24-00135-CV",
      "Decided": "January 24, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 24-BC01A-0006",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "Denied without stated reasoning. The court's first business court matter.",
        "Mandamus and temporary relief denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-24-00122",
      "Decision": "Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-24-00122-CV",
      "Decided": "February 6, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 24-BC01B-0005",
      "Proceeding": "Direct appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "The parties agreed to end the appeal before the court reached anything.",
        "Appeal dismissed on joint motion · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-24-00130",
      "Decision": "In re Energy Transfer LP",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-24-00130-CV",
      "Decided": "February 6, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 1B",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "The mandamus half of the same dispute, abandoned the same day.",
        "Mandamus dismissed on joint motion · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-24-00124",
      "Decision": "ETC Field Services, LLC v. TEMA Oil and Gas Co.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-24-00124-CV",
      "Decided": "February 21, 2025",
      "From": "8th Div., 24-BC08B-0001",
      "Proceeding": "Direct appeal",
      "Outcome": "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction",
      "What it holds": [
        "A business court remand order cannot be appealed. No statute authorises an interlocutory appeal of one, and a remand order is not a final judgment. If a removal fails, the case is back in district court and it stays there.",
        "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-24-00131",
      "Decision": "In re ETC Field Services, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-24-00131-CV",
      "Decided": "February 21, 2025",
      "From": "8th Div., 24-BC08B-0001",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "Removal does not commence a new civil action, it moves an existing one. So the removal statute does not reach a suit filed before September 1, 2024, and the remand was correct.",
        "Mandamus denied · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-24-00127",
      "Decision": "Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-24-00127-CV",
      "Decided": "February 21, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 24-BC01B-0007",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction",
      "What it holds": [
        "The companion holding, issued the same day as ETC Field Services and to the same effect. A remand order is not a final judgment and no statute makes it appealable.",
        "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00002",
      "Decision": "In re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00002-CV",
      "Decided": "February 21, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 24-BC01B-0007",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "The mandamus route to the same question, closed the same day.",
        "Mandamus denied · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00016",
      "Decision": "In re Marty Berry and Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00016-CV",
      "Decided": "March 25, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 24-BC11A-0025",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "A one-line denial. No reasoning given.",
        "Mandamus denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00019",
      "Decision": "In re T. Bently Durant, et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00019-CV",
      "Decided": "July 3, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 25-BC11A-0001",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "Action means the whole lawsuit, not an individual claim. A suit already on file before September 1, 2024 stays outside the Business Court no matter what is added to it afterwards.",
        "Mandamus denied · Not named on the opinion"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00025",
      "Decision": "In re Kimco Developers, Inc., et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00025-CV",
      "Decided": "July 3, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 24-BC11A-0013",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "An amended petition supersedes what came before it, so it cannot commence an action that has already been commenced. Adding a publicly traded company as a defendant does not restart the clock, even though a public company is otherwise a jurisdictional hook.",
        "Mandamus denied · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00125",
      "Decision": "In re Faisal Chaudhry and Stillwater OZ Development Fund, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Open",
      "Number": "15-25-00125-CV",
      "Decided": "August 12, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 1B",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Open",
      "What it holds": [
        "We have not read this one. The published PDF is an image scan with no text layer and no alternative source carries the text. We will not state a holding from a docket entry. Do not confuse it with the business court's own order in the same dispute, 2025 Tex. Bus. 31, which denied remand.",
        "Not established · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00095",
      "Decision": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corp.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00095-CV",
      "Decided": "August 19, 2025",
      "From": "1st Div., 24-BC01B-0010",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "An interlocutory appeal that merges into a later final judgment goes away. The court treated the appellants' notice of merger as a motion to dismiss and granted it. No ruling on the special appearances.",
        "Appeal dismissed · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00136",
      "Decision": "In re Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc., et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00136-CV",
      "Decided": "August 20, 2025",
      "From": "8th Div., 25-BC08B-0016",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "Relators did not establish entitlement to mandamus relief. Nine days from the challenged order to the denial.",
        "Mandamus and emergency motion denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00020",
      "Decision": "Storable, Inc. v. SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00020-CV",
      "Decided": "October 2, 2025",
      "From": "3d Div., 25-BC03A-0001",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "The appellants asked to dismiss their own appeal. Nothing was decided. The caption suggests a substantive dispute and there is no holding behind it.",
        "Appeal dismissed on unopposed motion · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00109",
      "Decision": "In re Storable, Inc., et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00109-CV",
      "Decided": "October 2, 2025",
      "From": "3d Div., 25-BC03A-0001",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "The mandamus track of the same fight, abandoned in parallel.",
        "Mandamus dismissed on unopposed motion · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00003",
      "Decision": "Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00003-CV",
      "Decided": "October 9, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 24-BC11A-0004",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Vacated and remanded",
      "What it holds": [
        "The counterweight to Durant and Kimco. After House Bill 40, the September 1, 2024 commencement provision does not bar the Business Court from hearing an older action where the parties jointly agree to proceed there and the other jurisdictional requirements are met.",
        "Vacated and remanded · Field, J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00098",
      "Decision": "NGL Water Solutions Permian, LLC v. Lime Rock Resources V-A L.P.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00098-CV",
      "Decided": "November 18, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 25-BC11B-0005",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "Voluntary dismissal. The motion was granted in part, and the opinion does not say what the remainder asked for.",
        "Motion granted in part, appeal dismissed · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00146",
      "Decision": "Buc-ee's, Ltd. v. Head Country, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00146-CV",
      "Decided": "November 18, 2025",
      "From": "11th Div., 25-BC11A-0028",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "One sentence. Buc-ee's asked to dismiss its own interlocutory appeal. The most recognisable name on this index and there is no holding attached to it.",
        "Appeal dismissed · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00027",
      "Decision": "Kreines, et al. v. ES3 Minerals, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00027-CV",
      "Decided": "December 4, 2025",
      "From": "3d Div., 24-BC03B-0005",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Reversed in part",
      "What it holds": [
        "Two holdings a commercial litigant can use. An injunction bond must be proportionate to what the enjoined party stands to lose if the injunction turns out to have been unwarranted, and $25,000 against $3.6 million in exposure was an abuse of discretion. Separately, an injunction barring dealings with the known subsidiaries of a customer fails Rule 683 where nothing in the record shows the enjoined party could know which entities those are. Brister, C.J., concurred, and would have gone to trial rather than order a bond hearing.",
        "Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part · Farris, J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00150",
      "Decision": "In re ColossusBets Limited, et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00150-CV",
      "Decided": "February 12, 2026",
      "From": "3d Div., 25-BC03A-0007",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "The Business Court keeps plenary power to reconsider its own ruling denying remand. And a plaintiff who expressly disclaims the theories that supported jurisdiction waives them by litigation conduct. The waiver is permanent and the disclaimed claims cannot be revived.",
        "Petition denied · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-26-00056",
      "Decision": "In re Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, and Liberty Mineral Partners LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-26-00056-CV",
      "Decided": "February 18, 2026",
      "From": "3d Div., 24-BC03B-0005",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "The same business court cause as the December 2025 appeal. This is the follow-on attack on what the trial judge did after remand, and it failed.",
        "Mandamus and emergency motion denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00221",
      "Decision": "In re The Highland Dallas Foundation, Inc., et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00221-CV",
      "Decided": "February 24, 2026",
      "From": "1st Div., 25-BC01B-0027",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "Relators did not establish entitlement to relief. No reasoning given.",
        "Mandamus denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00103",
      "Decision": "Dhamani v. Oulad-Chikh",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00103-CV",
      "Decided": "March 26, 2026",
      "From": "1st Div., 25-BC01A-0014",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "A derivative suit that settled. Dismissed with prejudice on the parties' own joint motion.",
        "Dismissed with prejudice on joint motion · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-26-00108",
      "Decision": "In re Socket Solutions, LLC",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-26-00108-CV",
      "Decided": "June 2, 2026",
      "From": "11th Div., 26-BC11B-0042",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "No holding, but the timing is worth knowing. The court issued an administrative stay on May 15 and resolved the matter in under three weeks.",
        "Mandamus denied, emergency relief moot, stay lifted · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-26-00124",
      "Decision": "In re Socket Solutions, LLC, as successor by merger",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-26-00124-CV",
      "Decided": "June 10, 2026",
      "From": "11th Div., 26-BC11B-0057",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Denied",
      "What it holds": [
        "A different business court cause from the June 2 matter, brought by the same relator in a different capacity. Related proceedings, not the same case.",
        "Mandamus denied · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00235",
      "Decision": "In re Frank Jackson",
      "Decision (tag)": "Key",
      "Number": "15-25-00235-CV",
      "Decided": "July 14, 2026",
      "From": "11th Div., 25-BC11B-00032",
      "Proceeding": "Mandamus",
      "Outcome": "Conditionally granted",
      "What it holds": [
        "A company's general counsel is protected by attorney immunity from a third party's tortious interference claim founded on his advice that the company terminate its chief executive. Advising on a for-cause termination carrying that kind of exposure is what corporate counsel is retained to do, and calling it business advice rather than legal advice does not change the analysis. No express engagement agreement is required. The test looks to the function the lawyer performed, not to how wrongful the conduct is alleged to be. Farris, J., dissented.",
        "Mandamus conditionally granted · Brister, C.J."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-26-00069",
      "Decision": "Kreines, et al. v. ES3 Minerals, LLC (second appeal)",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-26-00069-CV",
      "Decided": "August 4, 2026",
      "From": "3d Div., 24-BC03B-0005",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Voluntary dismissal",
      "What it holds": [
        "The Business Court signed final judgment while this interlocutory appeal of the same dispute sat abated; the appellants then asked to dismiss it as unnecessary, and the panel reinstated the case only to grant that motion.",
        "Appeal dismissed on unopposed motion as moot · Per curiam"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "15-25-00060",
      "Decision": "Berry, et al. v. Powers, et al.",
      "Decision (tag)": "Routine",
      "Number": "15-25-00060-CV",
      "Decided": "August 6, 2026",
      "From": "11th Div., 24-BC11A-0025",
      "Proceeding": "Interlocutory appeal",
      "Outcome": "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction",
      "What it holds": [
        "This was an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction. The Business Court entered final judgment while the appeal was pending, which mooted it; the court vacated the injunction order and dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than reach anything else.",
        "Temporary injunction order vacated, appeal dismissed as moot · Per curiam"
      ]
    }
  ]
}