{
  "name": "Texas Business Court Cases",
  "url": "https://www.kraus.law/trackers/texas-business-court-cases/",
  "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, Texas Business Court Cases, Kraus Law (last updated August 28, 2026), https://www.kraus.law/trackers/texas-business-court-cases/.",
  "lastVerified": "2026-08-28",
  "rowCount": 73,
  "columns": [
    "id",
    "Case",
    "Citation",
    "Date",
    "Division",
    "Judge",
    "Topic",
    "Summary",
    "sort key"
  ],
  "notes": {
    "id": "Anchors a row on the page. https://www.kraus.law/trackers/texas-business-court-cases/#<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": "tex-bus-2024-1",
      "Case": "Energy Transfer v. Culberson Midstream",
      "Citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 1",
      "Date": "October 30, 2024",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Granted motion to remand case to district court. Cases filed before September 1, 2024 not removable to Business Court under Section 8 of H.B. 19.",
      "sort key": "2024-10-30"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2024-2",
      "Case": "Synergy Global v. Hinduja Global",
      "Citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 2",
      "Date": "October 31, 2024",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Granted remand. Pre-September 1, 2024 cases removed to Business Court must be returned to district court.",
      "sort key": "2024-10-31"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2024-3",
      "Case": "TEMA Oil and Gas v. ETC Field Services",
      "Citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 3",
      "Date": "November 6, 2024",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "After construing H.B. 19, removal is not permitted for cases filed before September 1, 2024. Sanctions denied.",
      "sort key": "2024-11-06"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2024-5",
      "Case": "Winans v. Berry",
      "Citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 5",
      "Date": "November 7, 2024",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Barnard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Chapter 25A applies only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. 2022 suit cannot be removed.",
      "sort key": "2024-11-07"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2024-8",
      "Case": "Lone Star NGL v. EagleClaw Midstream",
      "Citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 8",
      "Date": "December 20, 2024",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Even with post-September 1 written agreement consenting to Business Court jurisdiction, pre-September 1, 2024 cases cannot be heard. Certified for permissive interlocutory appeal.",
      "sort key": "2024-12-20"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-1",
      "Case": "C Ten 31 v. Tarbox",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 1",
      "Date": "January 3, 2025",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Section 25A.004(e) incorporates the amount-in-controversy limit of the underlying subsection. Burden-shifting framework on amount-in-controversy challenges adopted.",
      "sort key": "2025-01-03"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-3",
      "Case": "Osmose Utilities v. Navarro County Electric",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 3",
      "Date": "January 31, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Bouressa, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Removal of an action means removal of the entire suit, partial removal of individual claims is not permitted.",
      "sort key": "2025-01-31"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-4",
      "Case": "Sebastian v. Durant",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 4",
      "Date": "February 4, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Under Section 8 of H.B. 19, an entire civil action commences with the filing of the original petition. Chapter 25A permits removal of an action, not partial removal of individual claims.",
      "sort key": "2025-02-04"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-6",
      "Case": "SafeLease v. Storable",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 6",
      "Date": "February 10, 2025",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Procedure",
      "Summary": "30-day period for removal does not begin before the action is filed. An action may satisfy jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages.",
      "sort key": "2025-02-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-8",
      "Case": "Cypress Town Center v. Kimco Realty",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 8",
      "Date": "February 25, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Joinder of a publicly-traded company after September 1, 2024 does not confer Business Court jurisdiction over a case filed pre-September 1, 2024.",
      "sort key": "2025-02-25"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-9",
      "Case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corp.",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 9",
      "Date": "March 10, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Partnership",
      "Summary": "Partner fiduciary duties of loyalty and care cannot be eliminated even where the partnership agreement limits them. Addresses drag-along rights and partner obligations.",
      "sort key": "2025-03-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-11",
      "Case": "ET Gathering & Processing v. Tellurian Production",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 11",
      "Date": "March 11, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Barnard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Plea to the jurisdiction denied. Defendant did not produce evidence that plaintiff's amount-in-controversy pleading was a sham.",
      "sort key": "2025-03-11"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-15",
      "Case": "Tall v. Vanderhoef",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 15",
      "Date": "April 21, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "LLC",
      "Summary": "Rule 91a. Individual breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim dismissed: the company agreement expressly disclaimed fiduciary duties except for gross negligence, fraud, or intentional misconduct, and the waiver was enforced as written. Fraud and Theft Liability Act claims survived; proceedings stayed pending arbitration under the agreement.",
      "sort key": "2025-04-21"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-16",
      "Case": "Atlas IDF v. NexPoint Real Estate Partners",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 16",
      "Date": "May 13, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Comprehensive opinion on \"qualified transaction\" under Chapter 25A, when an action \"arises out of\" a qualified transaction, the relevant period for aggregate value determination, and the burden for establishing the same.",
      "sort key": "2025-05-13"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-22",
      "Case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 22",
      "Date": "May 23, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Plea to jurisdiction denied. Plaintiff's allegations and defendant's failure to refute met the burden under Section 25A.004(d)(1).",
      "sort key": "2025-05-23"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-23",
      "Case": "Reed v. Rook TX",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 23",
      "Date": "June 18, 2025",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Internal Affairs",
      "Summary": "Action concerns limited partnership's \"governance, governing documents, or internal affairs\" under Section 25A.004(b)(2). Section 25A.004(b)(2) applies even where internal affairs are not the predominant focus.",
      "sort key": "2025-06-18"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-32",
      "Case": "Martens v. Lamkin Land & Cattle Co.",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 32",
      "Date": "August 14, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Business Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's application for involuntary winding-up of an LLC. Dominant jurisdiction doctrine does not apply where prior district court case is not sufficiently interrelated.",
      "sort key": "2025-08-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-31",
      "Case": "Chaudhry v. Stillwater Capital Investments",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 31",
      "Date": "August 12, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Comprehensive opinion addressing whether common law and statutory fraud inducing entry into LLC company agreement constitutes \"internal affairs\"; case-wide amount in controversy encompasses counterclaims.",
      "sort key": "2025-08-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-36",
      "Case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 36",
      "Date": "September 18, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Force-majeure dispute under NAESB base-contract. Both transaction confirmations combine with base contract to form a single, integrated agreement.",
      "sort key": "2025-09-18"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-35",
      "Case": "Riverside Strategic Capital v. CLG Investments",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 35",
      "Date": "September 17, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Limitations",
      "Summary": "Addresses statute of limitations accrual and the discovery rule for fraudulent statements in securities purchase agreements.",
      "sort key": "2025-09-17"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-37",
      "Case": "Barrett v. Barrett",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 37",
      "Date": "September 23, 2025",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Barnard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Claims arising out of Title 9 of the Property Code (trusts) are not within Business Court jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(g) requires agreement of all parties.",
      "sort key": "2025-09-23"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-38",
      "Case": "Arnold v. Blue Ridge Landfill",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 38",
      "Date": "October 7, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Denying defendant's summary judgment motion. Royalty payment contract interpretation re: revenue from disposal of solid waste partially on and partially off the Property.",
      "sort key": "2025-10-07"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-39",
      "Case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy (Winter Storm Uri)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 39",
      "Date": "October 14, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Force-majeure dispute arising from Winter Storm Uri. Contract did not obligate seller to purchase gas on spot market or buy back delivery obligation as prerequisite or alternative to declaring force majeure.",
      "sort key": "2025-10-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-40",
      "Case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy (Liquidated Damages)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 40",
      "Date": "October 28, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Fact issues preclude determination of whether liquidated-damages clause is an unenforceable penalty. Defendant's cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of plaintiff's actual damages under the circumstances.",
      "sort key": "2025-10-28"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-43",
      "Case": "Cadence McShane Construction v. Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 43",
      "Date": "November 3, 2025",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Sweeten, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Third-party claims against subcontractors met the \"qualified transaction\" definition under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Plea to the jurisdiction denied.",
      "sort key": "2025-11-03"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-44",
      "Case": "Lensabl v. RBH SPE One",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 44",
      "Date": "November 5, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Pleading",
      "Summary": "Rule 91a motion to dismiss granted in part, pleadings fail to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract or veil piercing. Fraud claim adequately pleaded.",
      "sort key": "2025-11-05"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-45",
      "Case": "City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 45",
      "Date": "November 8, 2025",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Contract termination notice, termination not subject to \"strict compliance\" standard applicable to option exercise. Substantial compliance with notice provisions sufficient. Specific performance denied as estopped.",
      "sort key": "2025-11-08"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-46",
      "Case": "CRS Mechanical v. Norfolk Cold Storage",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 46",
      "Date": "November 14, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Construction",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted against counterclaims for declaratory relief. Declarations either duplicated issues already joined or sought relief beyond the Court's jurisdiction.",
      "sort key": "2025-11-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-49",
      "Case": "Crain v. Northern (Legal Malpractice)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 49",
      "Date": "December 17, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Such claims are not within the Court's authority.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-17"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-50",
      "Case": "Hensarling v. Carmichael",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 50",
      "Date": "December 18, 2025",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Partnership",
      "Summary": "Motion to dismiss under Rule 91a denied. Application to wind up a partnership under Section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations at this early stage.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-18"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-53",
      "Case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy (Reciprocal Waiver)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 53",
      "Date": "December 22, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted on competing motions concerning a reciprocal waiver agreement. No genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the definiteness of the agreement's essential terms or mutual assent.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-22"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-55",
      "Case": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank (Trust Code)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 55",
      "Date": "December 19, 2025",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Trust",
      "Summary": "Trust Code does not bar punitive damages waivers. Waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same financing. Terminated trustee must protect former beneficiary's confidential information.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-3",
      "Case": "Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction (Inaugural Jury Trial)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 3",
      "Date": "January 26, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Bouressa, J.",
      "Topic": "Trial",
      "Summary": "Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing in the Business Court's first jury trial. Plaintiffs take nothing on certain claims; declaratory relief denied to both sides. Breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud claims proceed to jury trial.",
      "sort key": "2026-01-26"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-4",
      "Case": "Crain v. Northern (Buy-Sell Option)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 4",
      "Date": "February 2, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J. †",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Specific performance ordered under a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause. Offeror entitled to specific performance after Offeree failed to respond to required notice. Attorneys' fees awarded.",
      "sort key": "2026-02-02"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-5",
      "Case": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank (Responsible Third Party)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 5",
      "Date": "February 2, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Procedure",
      "Summary": "Addresses Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of \"responsible third party\" and the meaning of \"the harm for which recovery of damages is sought.\"",
      "sort key": "2026-02-02"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-6",
      "Case": "Alamo Title v. WFG National",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 6",
      "Date": "February 3, 2026",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Removal notice pleading more than $5M in controversy satisfied jurisdictional threshold absent rebutting evidence. Aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty and IP-related allegations invoked Section 25A.004 jurisdictional clauses.",
      "sort key": "2026-02-03"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-7",
      "Case": "American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 7",
      "Date": "February 19, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J. †",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Defendant's special appearance denied. Court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendant.",
      "sort key": "2026-02-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-8",
      "Case": "BNSF Railway v. Level 3 Communications",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 8",
      "Date": "February 24, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Bouressa, J.",
      "Topic": "Arbitration",
      "Summary": "Arbitration award confirmed. Parties' contract and applicable law gave the arbitration panel authority to decide both substantive and procedural arbitrability questions.",
      "sort key": "2026-02-24"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-9",
      "Case": "Yaun v. Battle & Sands Energy (HB 40 Retroactivity)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 9",
      "Date": "March 3, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Dorfman, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "HB 40's $5M amount-in-controversy threshold applies retroactively to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024. Motion to remand denied.",
      "sort key": "2026-03-03"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-11",
      "Case": "Crain v. Northern (Derivative Standing)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 11",
      "Date": "March 11, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J. †",
      "Topic": "Derivative",
      "Summary": "Plea to the jurisdiction granted against derivative claims. Plaintiff lacked standing because he was no longer a member of the entities when he filed suit, per TBOC § 101.463.",
      "sort key": "2026-03-11"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-12",
      "Case": "Galderma Laboratories v. Brenner",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 12",
      "Date": "March 12, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Non-Compete",
      "Summary": "Temporary injunction granted against former employee's breach of non-compete agreement; scope of services reformed. Temporary injunction denied for customer non-solicit, worker non-solicit, confidentiality, and TUTSA claims.",
      "sort key": "2026-03-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-13",
      "Case": "GoSecure v. CrowdStrike",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 13",
      "Date": "March 13, 2026",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "CrowdStrike's special appearance granted. Court lacks general jurisdiction (CrowdStrike not \"essentially at home\" in Texas despite large office and sales). Specific jurisdiction lacking because claims don't arise out of or relate to Texas contacts.",
      "sort key": "2026-03-13"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-14",
      "Case": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 14",
      "Date": "March 27, 2026",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Oil & Gas",
      "Summary": "Partial summary judgment on oil & gas lease interpretation. Contracts conveyed fee simple determinable; earned-acreage provisions operate as special limitations on property interest; 30% reversionary back-in interest triggered at Payout.",
      "sort key": "2026-03-27"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-15",
      "Case": "Dallas Sports Club v. DSE Hockey Arena (Mavericks v. Stars)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 15",
      "Date": "April 2, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "90-page opinion resolving seven summary judgment motions in Dallas Mavericks v. Dallas Stars franchise/location dispute. Contract construction across four contracts among three parties; Mavericks' claims survive on contract-construction grounds.",
      "sort key": "2026-04-02"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-16",
      "Case": "Daimler Truck Financial Services v. Vanguard National Trailer",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 16",
      "Date": "April 8, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J. †",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Certain defendants' special appearance granted. Plaintiff failed to establish that its claims against them arose out of their Texas conduct in this lien-priority dispute involving trailer manufacturer fraud allegations.",
      "sort key": "2026-04-08"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-17",
      "Case": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich (Advancement)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 17",
      "Date": "April 9, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Indemnification",
      "Summary": "Motion to compel advancement of legal fees against third-party defendant denied. Claims were not brought \"by reason of\" his service as a director as required by the third-party defendant's company agreement.",
      "sort key": "2026-04-09"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-18",
      "Case": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich (Drag-Along)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 18",
      "Date": "April 10, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Governance",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted. Company agreement required only majority board approval to transfer membership units; it did not also require consent of two directors.",
      "sort key": "2026-04-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-19",
      "Case": "Enosis Investments v. Jensen",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 19",
      "Date": "April 23, 2026",
      "Division": "3rd Div.",
      "Judge": "Andrews, J.",
      "Topic": "LLC",
      "Summary": "Rule 166(g) ruling on fiduciary duties. Pleadings did not support joint venture (no agreement to share profits/losses). A non-managing member of a manager-managed LLC generally does not owe fiduciary duties; corporate manager's fiduciary duty is not passed through to its individual officers/owners absent piercing.",
      "sort key": "2026-04-23"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-20",
      "Case": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 20",
      "Date": "May 1, 2026",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Oil & Gas",
      "Summary": "Unambiguous farmout agreement: the “Payout” trigger applies on an aggregated basis, not well-by-well. Post-execution course-of-performance evidence struck.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-22",
      "Case": "The Mark at Weatherford Owner v. German",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 22",
      "Date": "May 6, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "“Payable” means amounts legally owed regardless of the obligor's ability to pay, and “default” in an automatic-trigger clause means any failure, unqualified. Put-right exercise validated.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-06"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-23",
      "Case": "Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 23",
      "Date": "May 8, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Section 25A.006(f)(2)'s 30-day removal window operates as a ceiling, not a floor: removal is proper within 30 days of when jurisdictional facts emerge, even during pending temporary-injunction proceedings.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-08"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-25",
      "Case": "Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 25",
      "Date": "May 12, 2026",
      "Division": "4th Div.",
      "Judge": "Barnard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Jurisdictional plea on the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold denied: alleged damages, including attorney fees and coverage gaps, counted toward the threshold regardless of settlement caps.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-27",
      "Case": "DrinkPAK v. PRIII/Crow Building C",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 27",
      "Date": "May 14, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J. †",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Removal untimely: defendants were on notice of Business Court jurisdiction from service of the original petition and pre-suit correspondence, and could not remove years later after remand from federal court.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-28",
      "Case": "Camino Real Developers v. RivenRock",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 28",
      "Date": "May 15, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "LLC",
      "Summary": "Membership interests are inseparable from the company agreement: dilution provisions run with an interest upon transfer, so an assignee cannot claim the interest's benefits while disclaiming its obligations.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-15"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-29",
      "Case": "Plains Pipeline v. Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 29",
      "Date": "May 16, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J.",
      "Topic": "Contract",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted: the asset purchase agreement unambiguously limited remedies to specific indemnification provisions, which had expired before the claims arose.",
      "sort key": "2026-05-16"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-36",
      "Case": "Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 36",
      "Date": "June 3, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Trial",
      "Summary": "Mavericks–Stars litigation continued: a subsequent breach after bankruptcy triggered redemption rights; entities with actual knowledge of the redemption letters could not later assert due-process objections; res judicata did not bar the claims.",
      "sort key": "2026-06-03"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-39",
      "Case": "South Shore ER v. Bashiri",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 39",
      "Date": "June 11, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Removal upheld: contractual venue-selection clauses cannot defeat Business Court jurisdiction absent statutory authorization, and the 30-day removal clock ran from the expert reports that established jurisdictional facts.",
      "sort key": "2026-06-11"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-40",
      "Case": "Local Marketing v. Bennett",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 40",
      "Date": "June 15, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Sharp, J.",
      "Topic": "Procedure",
      "Summary": "TCPA dismissal of counterclaims: letters referencing litigation were protected communications under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, and the counterclaimant presented no clear and specific damages evidence.",
      "sort key": "2026-06-15"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-18",
      "Case": "G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 18",
      "Date": "May 14, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Remanded for want of a qualified transaction. Construction-project bids are not consummated agreements, so none obligated a party to pay or receive the consideration the statute requires. Remanded to the 355th District Court, Hood County.",
      "sort key": "2025-05-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-24",
      "Case": "Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 24",
      "Date": "June 30, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Amount in controversy is measured by royalties accrued between execution and filing, not by the value of a disputed royalty stream for the life of the agreement. The court found the amount no more than $4.5 million and remanded.",
      "sort key": "2025-06-30"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-29",
      "Case": "M&M Livestock v. Robinson",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 29",
      "Date": "August 4, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Plea to the jurisdiction denied. An amended petition that pleads facts sufficient to satisfy the $5 million threshold keeps a derivative case in the Business Court.",
      "sort key": "2025-08-04"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-52",
      "Case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy (Third-Party Beneficiary)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 52",
      "Date": "December 22, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Standing",
      "Summary": "An affiliate that did not sign the operating agreement was not a third-party beneficiary and lacked standing on its contract claim. All doubts resolve against conferring third-party beneficiary status.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-22"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2025-54",
      "Case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy (Damages)",
      "Citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 54",
      "Date": "December 22, 2025",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "Damages",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment for the defendant on lost revenue for six named wells and on 35 unidentified future wells, denied as to the plaintiff's incurred redesign costs and expectancy damages. A damages model resting on wells that have not been identified does not survive.",
      "sort key": "2025-12-22"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-52",
      "Case": "Simpson v. Simpson",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 52",
      "Date": "July 29, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Bullard, J.",
      "Topic": "LLC",
      "Summary": "A company agreement's fiduciary shield provision controlled and absolved the managing member of liability for diluting the other member's interest. What the agreement permits, the court will not second-guess.",
      "sort key": "2026-07-29"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-53",
      "Case": "Riverside Homebuilders v. FG Aledo Development",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 53",
      "Date": "July 29, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Statute of Frauds",
      "Summary": "A real property contract must furnish the data to identify the land at the moment it is made. A lot-selection right that hinges entirely on a third party's future discretionary decision is not an unqualified right, and the contract failed the statute of frauds.",
      "sort key": "2026-07-29"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-54",
      "Case": "Fischer v. Fischer",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 54",
      "Date": "July 29, 2026",
      "Division": "8th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J.",
      "Topic": "Immunity",
      "Summary": "Derived judicial immunity is robust once it attaches to a function. Every action taken with respect to the protected function is immune from suit, good or bad, and all claims against the court-appointed party were dismissed with prejudice.",
      "sort key": "2026-07-29"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-49",
      "Case": "Village Crossing v. West Creek Investments",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 49",
      "Date": "July 22, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J. (by assignment)",
      "Topic": "Statute of Frauds",
      "Summary": "The writing itself, or another writing already in existence when the parties sign, must describe the property. A future-survey arrangement does not satisfy the statute of frauds and the agreement was void.",
      "sort key": "2026-07-22"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-55",
      "Case": "In re Radical Hoops",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 55",
      "Date": "August 5, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Jurisdiction",
      "Summary": "Denied an emergency motion to remand a removed Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition. The anticipated dispute the petition was investigating fell within Business Court jurisdiction, so the petition itself was removable before any underlying suit had been filed.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-05"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-56",
      "Case": "CAM Industrial Solutions v. Brown & Root",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 56",
      "Date": "August 10, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Stagner, J. (by assignment)",
      "Topic": "Preclusion",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted in part. Brown & Root prevailed on claim-preclusion grounds tied to a prior Chambers County judgment; a competing preclusion motion from co-defendant Daley was denied.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-57",
      "Case": "Carrington v. Corsi",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 57",
      "Date": "August 12, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J.",
      "Topic": "Conversion",
      "Summary": "Rule 91a dismissal granted in part. Uncertificated LLC membership interests are not property that can support a common-law conversion claim, and the conversion count was dismissed with prejudice.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-58",
      "Case": "Clean Hydrogen Works v. Denbury Carbon Solutions",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 58",
      "Date": "August 12, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Adrogué, J. †",
      "Topic": "Antitrust",
      "Summary": "Rule 91a dismissal granted in part. The Louisiana Monopolization Act claim was dismissed; the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claim survived.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-59",
      "Case": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank (Express Trust)",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 59",
      "Date": "August 14, 2026",
      "Division": "1st Div.",
      "Judge": "Whitehill, J.",
      "Topic": "Trust",
      "Summary": "Summary judgment granted in part. The bond financing documents did not create an express trust; the trustee's monitoring and notice duties came from the contract, not the Trust Code.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-14"
    },
    {
      "id": "tex-bus-2026-60",
      "Case": "Unimacts Global v. Ayr Energy",
      "Citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 60",
      "Date": "August 17, 2026",
      "Division": "11th Div.",
      "Judge": "Barnard, J.",
      "Topic": "Procedure",
      "Summary": "Protective order motion denied. India-based outside counsel access to attorney’s-eyes-only discovery materials denied given the risk of inadvertent disclosure to a competitor manufacturer.",
      "sort key": "2026-08-17"
    }
  ]
}