SMU Cox · Corporate Governance Initiative Cox · Dedman Law

Live since May 20, 2026

The Hilltop Docket

Source-linked research on the Texas Business Court — written opinions, selected docket events, hearing calendars, and doctrine. A research publication of the SMU Corporate Governance Initiative.

Live monitor opinions

103

Docket-verified corpus

103

Dockets monitored

1,420

Monitor refresh

30 min

Issues published

8

Headline finding · The Hilltop Docket

The Hilltop Docket is the SMU CGI weekly intelligence brief on the Texas Business Court, combining opinion summaries, new-petition treatments, weekly hearing schedules, and editorial briefs into dated issues published as warranted; typically weekly during the research-preview period.

Published as a research publication of the SMU Corporate Governance Initiative at SMU Cox School of Business and SMU Dedman School of Law. Published case treatments identify the source record used for the claim — opinion PDF, re:SearchTX docket metadata, filing of record, or source-pending label. Public cadence is intentionally cadence-agnostic; archive is open.

  • 8Issues published · through June 2026
  • WeeklyEditorial cadence
  • Source-statuslabeled

By the numbers

A two-year court at a glance

Five charts derived from the SMU CGI Live Monitor's verified opinion corpus and the Hilltop Docket source-status taxonomy. Color coding by division and doctrinal family is held consistent across this site. Each chart is interactive — click to enlarge.

Cumulative opinions and quarterly issuance, 2024 Q4 to 2026 Q2 Cumulative opinions and quarterly issuance 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q2 · n = 103 opinions 0 26 51 77 103 0 7 13 20 26 8 12 13 12 18 14 26 103 2024 Q4 2025 Q1 2025 Q2 2025 Q3 2025 Q4 2026 Q1 2026 Q2 H.B. 40 eff. Sept. 1, 2025 Per-quarter issuance (bars, right axis) Cumulative opinions (line, left axis) Source: smucgi.pages.dev opinions/data/opinions.json
Figure V-1. Cumulative and per-quarter opinion issuance, October 2024 through June 2026. Bars: opinions issued per quarter (right axis). Line: cumulative opinions to date (left axis). Reference marker: H.B. 40 transition (Sept. 1, 2025) lowering the qualified-transaction threshold from $10 million to $5 million.
Opinion issuance by division and quarter Opinion issuance by division and quarter Five operational divisions × seven quarters · color intensity = opinion count 1st Div. Dallas 3 4 3 5 4 5 7 3d Div. Austin 4 1 3 1 1 1 4th Div. San Antonio 2 1 1 2 2 2 8th Div. Fort Worth 1 4 2 6 4 4 11th Div. Houston 2 4 4 1 5 2 12 2024 Q4 8 2025 Q1 12 2025 Q2 13 2025 Q3 12 2025 Q4 18 2026 Q1 14 2026 Q2 26 31 11 10 21 30 Quarter total shown below each column · Row total at right of each row Source: smucgi.pages.dev opinions/data/opinions.json
Figure V-2. Per-quarter opinion issuance by division. Eleventh Division (Houston) and First Division (Dallas) dominate caseload through 2026 Q2; Eleventh Division concentration in 2026 Q2 reflects recent qualified-transaction litigation.
Doctrinal taxonomy — top tags by opinion count Doctrinal taxonomy — top tags by opinion count Color = doctrinal family · area ∝ frequency · tags from per-opinion mapping (176 tag-instances across 103 opinions) Contract construction 32 Damages & remedies 19 Amount in controversy 15 Qualified transaction 14 Commencement date (H.B. 14 Plea to the jurisdiction 13 Removal timeliness 9 Fiduciary duty 7 Special appearance / per 7 Partnership governance 6 Jurisdiction & Removal Procedure Substantive — Entity Substantive — Contract & Commercial Substantive — Other Source: smucgi.pages.dev opinions/data/tags.json
Figure V-3. Distribution of opinion tag instances across the SMU CGI doctrinal taxonomy. Procedure and substantive entity issues dominate the corpus; contract construction is the most-tagged single doctrine to date.
Top eight authors by opinion count Judge signature panel — top eight authors Published vs memorandum split · sorted by total opinions · ranges 6–19 Whitehill 19 10 pub 9 mem Bullard 17 9 pub 8 mem Andrews 13 9 pub 4 mem Stagner 12 1 pub 11 mem Bouressa 12 4 pub 8 mem Sharp 10 4 pub 6 mem Barnard 7 6 pub 1 mem Adrogué 6 2 pub 4 mem Published Memorandum Corpus total: 48 published + 55 memorandum
Figure V-4. Authorship distribution among the eight most-prolific authors. Published-vs-memorandum split shown for each. Whitehill (First Div., Dallas) leads the corpus, followed by Bullard (Eighth Div., Fort Worth); Bouressa sits in the First Division (Dallas). The Eleventh Division (Houston) caseload is authored chiefly by Adrogué and Dorfman.
Live monitor freshness — minutes since last sync REFRESH CADENCE 30 min Opinions checked every 30 min
Figure V-5. Live monitor refresh cadence (opinions stream). The ring fills as the next 30-minute check approaches. The cases, filings, and hearings streams are exported on a longer cadence (source-limited by the Texas re:SearchTX search-alert pipeline).

All charts hydrate from opinions/data/opinions.json, tags.json, and docket_alerts.json. Click any figure to enlarge.

What every edition contains

Six recurring sections

Each edition is built atop the SMU CGI live-monitor pipeline. The live monitor checks source channels on separate cadences. Opinions are checked against the official Texas Judicial Branch opinions page; cases, filings, and hearings are drawn from permitted re:SearchTX alert or export channels and are source-limited. Each issue is reviewed by a human editor before publication. Every issue is reviewed by a human editor before send.

From the editor

Editorial commentary on the day's most consequential development — a new opinion, a doctrinal shift, a notable filing or hearing.

From the Bench

Case-by-case treatment of newly-issued TBC opinions — caption, citation, ruling, procedural posture, numbered holdings, and tagged keywords for cross-edition search.

Summaries of New Petitions

Structured summaries of each newly-filed TBC case — parties, counsel, claims, jurisdictional basis, and any preliminary motions pending.

Hearings & Calendar

The court's calendar: hearings, conferences, and trials across all five currently operational divisions (First · Dallas; Third · Austin; Fourth · San Antonio; Eighth · Fort Worth; Eleventh · Houston), with case captions and motion types.

Cross-Jurisdiction

Developments outside Texas that bear on TBC litigants and doctrine — Delaware Chancery, Nevada's new business court, federal circuit, SEC actions.

Verbatim

Quoted excerpts from court orders and opinions, presented as primary source material with citation and link to source PDF where available.

Read the inaugural edition

Issue No. 1 · May 20, 2026.

A research-grade monitor for a new Texas court. The corpus count, the methodology, the editorial standard, and five recent opinions from the Texas Business Court’s expanding docket.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 1 · WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 · INAUGURAL EDITION

"As of this issue, the court has issued 92 opinions since opening on September 1, 2024 — sequential per-year citations from 2024 Tex. Bus. 1 forward, verified contiguous across the canonical corpus. Forty-five were formally published opinions; forty-seven were styled memorandum opinions. We have PDFs of each…"

This week's edition

Issue No. 2 · May 25, 2026 · Week in Review.

A quiet opinions week at the Texas Business Court — no new opinions issued May 21–25. Four new Business Court petitions were filed Friday across the First and Eleventh Divisions. The week's hearings calendar runs through Friday. Wednesday brings the ExxonMobil shareholder vote and a same-day Faculty Exchange feature.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 2 · MONDAY, MAY 25, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

"Between the publication of Issue No. 1 on Wednesday, May 20 and the editorial cutoff for this issue at noon Central today, the Court issued no new opinions. The corpus held at 92 total opinions. We have therefore organized this edition around the work the Court did on the docketing and calendaring side: four new Business Court filings on Friday, and a substantive week of motion practice ahead…"

Faculty Exchange feature

May 27, 2026 · ExxonMobil vote day.

ExxonMobil and the Leopard Paradigm: A Faculty Exchange — a sourced chronicle of the published exchange between SMU Dedman’s Associate Dean for Research Christina M. Sautter and SMU CGI Executive Director Shane Goodwin on ExxonMobil’s New Jersey–to–Texas redomiciliation, presented in publication order, with every Bloomberg Law, CLS Blue Sky Blog, Texas Lawbook, Law360, SSRN, EDGAR, and statutory source hyperlinked.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

FACULTY EXCHANGE FEATURE · WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2026 · EXXONMOBIL VOTE DAY

"Goodwin asks what the proxy does now. Sautter asks what the Texas move enables later. … The exchange operates through specific, sourced disagreement. Sautter and Goodwin disagree sharply, but the disagreement is conducted through sources: proxy filings, statutory text, empirical claims, and published scholarship…"

Issue No. 4 · Week in Review

June 1, 2026 · ExxonMobil approved; three opinions land on the index.

Bridge from prior Week-in-Review: between Issue No. 2 (May 25 cutoff at noon Central) and this issue (June 1 cutoff), three opinions were published to the court's official index — DK Trading & Supply v. Wink to Webster Pipeline (2026 Tex. Bus. 33, May 28), Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich (2026 Tex. Bus. 34, May 29), and Brown v. Exxon Mobil (2026 Tex. Bus. 35, May 29).

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 4 · MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

“ExxonMobil’s shareholders approved the company’s redomestication from New Jersey to Texas on May 27 — roughly 71.2% of votes cast (8-K Item 5.07, acc. 0000034088-26-000078) — while the Business Court published three opinions to its official index, including Brown v. Exxon Mobil (2026 Tex. Bus. 35), in which the court declined jurisdiction over a removed employment-discrimination suit…”

Issue No. 5 · Week in Review

June 8, 2026 · The bench's recent run — opinions that define the court's reach.

Bridge from prior Week-in-Review: with Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club (2026 Tex. Bus. 36, June 3) now on the court's official index, the recent run 2026 Tex. Bus. 33 through 36 is complete — reviewed here together for the doctrine they set.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 5 · MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

“The Business Court resumed the bench with four opinions confirmed on its official index. In Brown v. Exxon Mobil the court declined jurisdiction over a removed employment-discrimination suit, reading ‘internal affairs’ narrowly; in Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich it held a drag-along ‘Affiliate’ means present control, not post-closing rights. A crude-oil contract dispute and the Mavericks–Stars Arena matter round out the week…”

Issue No. 6 · Week in Review

June 15, 2026 · A denial week — three opinions, each against the moving party.

Bridge from prior Week-in-Review: since Issue No. 5 (June 8), three new memorandum opinions are confirmed on the court's official index — 2026 Tex. Bus. 37 through 39 — carrying the corpus contiguously through 2026 Tex. Bus. 39.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 6 · MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

“Three new opinions, each denying the moving party. The First Division denied Boeing’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the 737 MAX/SWAPA suit (leave to replead by June 19) and denied both cross-motions over a ‘relocate to Dallas’ employment term as ambiguous — a jury question. In South Shore ER v. Bashiri, the Eleventh Division denied a remand on four independent grounds, reaffirming whole-action jurisdiction under Reed v. Rook…”

Issue No. 7 · Week in Review

June 22, 2026 · A quiet week — one opinion, an anti-SLAPP dismissal with mandatory fees.

Bridge from prior Week-in-Review: since Issue No. 6 (June 15), one new memorandum opinion has posted to the court's official index — 2026 Tex. Bus. 40 — carrying the corpus contiguously through 2026 Tex. Bus. 40.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 7 · MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

“A single new opinion. In Local Marketing, Inc. v. Bennett, the Eleventh Division granted a Texas Citizens Participation Act motion dismissing a departing employee’s defamation and tortious-interference counterclaims — the customer letters at issue ‘pertain[ed] to’ the underlying lawsuit, and the counterclaimant offered no clear and specific evidence of damages, nor a viable defamation-per-se theory. The court awarded the statute’s mandatory $18,010 in attorney’s fees and declined sanctions…”

Issue No. 8 · Week in Review

June 29, 2026 · A second quiet week — no new opinion; the corpus holds.

Bridge from prior Week-in-Review: since Issue No. 7 (June 22), no new opinion has posted to the court's official index — the per-year corpus remains contiguous through 2026 Tex. Bus. 40, with no citation added this period.

SMU Corporate Governance Initiative

The Hilltop Docket

ISSUE NO. 8 · MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026 · WEEK IN REVIEW

“A second consecutive quiet week on the bench. No opinion posted to the court’s official index since Local Marketing v. Bennett (2026 Tex. Bus. 40); the per-year corpus runs contiguously through that citation with no gaps and nothing added. Continuity, not length, is the point of an edition like this one: we record that the published docket did not move, summarize the re:SearchTX alert posture, check the ExxonMobil redomestication status, and restate the threads we are carrying forward — the SWAPA repleading and the fallout from Local Marketing’s mandatory anti-SLAPP fee award…”

Editorial

Standards.

Primary sources only.

Every claim of fact in The Hilltop Docket is anchored in a primary source — a court opinion, a public filing, an enacted statute, or a transcript. Footnote URLs point to primary sources, not commentary. Practitioner blogs may appear as scholarship cites but not as URL targets. This is the editorial discipline of the SMU CGI corpus generally and it applies to this publication without exception.

Human review.

Every opinion summary is reviewed by a human editor against the court's actual order before publication. We do not publish AI-generated summaries that no person has read. We mark our sources, we mark our methods, and we mark our editors. The masthead lists everyone who reads before send.

Independence.

The Hilltop Docket is a research publication of the SMU Corporate Governance Initiative. Interpretations are the authors' own. SMU CGI has no financial or advisory relationship with any litigant before the Texas Business Court. If that ever changes, we will disclose it on Page One.

Editor

Shane Goodwin, PhD, LL.M.

Executive Director, SMU Corporate Governance Initiative
Professor of Practice in Finance, SMU Cox School of Business
Adjunct Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
sgoodwin@smu.edu · Faculty profile

Questions

Frequently asked.

Is The Hilltop Docket free?

Yes, during the research-preview launch period. We may introduce a paid tier later — most likely a freemium model with a free weekly digest and a paid daily edition with case-following and judge-alert features. Our current intention is that subscribers who joined during the research-preview period will retain free-tier access if and when we introduce paid features. We reserve the right to revise this policy as the publication evolves, with at least 30 days’ notice of any change.

How often will it publish?

Publishing as warranted; typically weekly during the research-preview period. The inaugural Issue No. 1 was published on Wednesday, May 20, 2026 (soft launch); public launch was Friday, May 22, 2026. Daily cadence is on the roadmap once subscriber count crosses our editorial-capacity threshold. The companion live monitor at smucgi.pages.dev/research/texas-business-court/opinions/ updates every 30 minutes regardless of digest cadence.

Who is on the editorial team?

Editorial direction by Shane Goodwin (Executive Director, SMU CGI). Case-level review by SMU CGI research staff and Dedman Law students. Data pipeline by SMU CGI. A complete masthead is at /hilltop-docket/about/.

How do I cite a Hilltop Docket edition?

Recommended citation: The Hilltop Docket, Issue No. [N], [Section name] ([Date]), https://smucgi.pages.dev/hilltop-docket/[YYYY-MM-DD]/. We track our own corpus with stable URLs that will not change as the site evolves.

Can I redistribute or quote?

Editorial content is © SMU Corporate Governance Initiative. Fair-use quotation with attribution and link is welcome. For broader redistribution, please write to hilltopdocket@smucgi.org. The case summaries themselves are reportorial; the underlying court orders are public.

Subscribe

Future editions of the Hilltop Docket are distributed by email to interested practitioners, scholars, and Texas Business Court counsel.

Email to subscribe →

Or write to sgoodwin@smu.edu directly. We respond personally; no automated list.

How we work

Editorial standards.

We borrow the disciplines that make Delaware-side reporting trustworthy: primary sources, human review, declared conflicts, and a refusal to take paid placement on coverage.

01 / Primary sources

Court text, dockets, filings of record.

Opinions are pulled from txcourts.gov/businesscourt; dockets from re:SearchTX; statutes from capitol.texas.gov. Practitioner blogs may appear in scholarship cites but are never load-bearing.

02 / Bluebook 21st

Citation discipline on every entry.

Per-opinion entries follow Bluebook 21st short-form conventions; sequential per-year citations are preserved (e.g., 2026 Tex. Bus. 29 follows 28).

03 / Human review

Every opinion summary read by a human editor.

AI assists with first-pass extraction. Every published characterization is read against the underlying opinion PDF; mischaracterizations are corrected at the source with a dated note.

04 / Independence & conflicts

No party may purchase coverage. Conflicts declared in-issue.

SMU CGI is funded institutionally. The Hilltop Docket accepts no paid placement and declares conflicts in the closing section of each issue. Editorial policy.