{ "opinions": [ { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 32", "year": 2026, "num": 32, "date": "May 20, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Dorfman", "memOp": true, "caption": "Clean-Co Systems v. Enterprise Products Operating", "industry": "Transportation", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to district court. At issue is a purchase order in an amount less than $1 million issued under a 2003 master service agreement, pursuant to which the defendant claims to have paid the plaintiff over $7.8 million to date. The defendant argued that a qualified transaction \"springs\" into existence upon the execution of the first purchase order or invoice resulting in the payment of over $5 million. The Court rejected the argument because the historical purchase orders on which the defendant relies spanned more than two decades, involved differing scopes of work, and were performed at diverse facilities – potentially operated by different affiliated entities. Only one such purchase order is at issue in this case. The remainder are not in controversy.", "mediaId": "1462773", "op_no": 32, "date_iso": "2026-05-20", "mem_op": true, "case": "Clean-Co Systems v. Enterprise Products Operating", "plaintiff": "Clean-Co Systems", "defendant": "Enterprise Products Operating", "subject_matter": "Master service agreement / purchase order", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Qualified-transaction threshold; whether MSA + historical POs aggregate to $5M (HB 40)", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "hereby GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462773/26-bc11b-0003-clean-co-systems-v-enterprise-products-operating-2026-tex-bus-32.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 7, "paragraph_count": 12, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. Gov't Code §25A.001(14); Tex. Gov't Code §25A.004", "cases_cited_count": 0, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to district court. At issue is a purchase order in an amount less than $1 million issued under a 2003 master service agreement, pursuant to which the defendant claims to have paid the plaintiff over $7.8 million to date. The defendant argued that a qualified transaction \"springs\" into existence upon the execution of the first purchase order or invoice resulting in the payment of over $5 million. The Court rejected the argument because the historical purchase orders on which the defendant relies spanned more than two decades, involved differing scopes of work, and were performed at diverse facilities – potentially operated by different affiliated entities. Only one such purchase order is at issue in this case. The remainder are not in controversy.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1462773", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462773/26-bc11b-0003-clean-co-systems-v-enterprise-products-operating-2026-tex-bus-32.pdf", "source_line_range": "L139-L144", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Qualified-transaction aggregation rejected; historical orders not combined", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_archived": "REMANDED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 31", "year": 2026, "num": 31, "date": "May 20, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Unimachts Global v. Ayr Energy", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Rule 91a dismissal", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trade Secret Tutsa, Knowing Participation Aiding Abetting", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty", "trade_secret_tutsa", "knowing_participation_aiding_abetting" ], "summary": "Denying the defendants' motion to dismiss under TRCP 91a. To the extent that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty and knowing-participation claims are based on conduct independent of any alleged trade-secret-misappropriation, those claims are not preempted by TUTSA. The defendant may be charged with the knowledge its agents acquired while conducting the defendant’s business. The plaintiffs, therefore, adequately pled the knowledge element of their knowing-participation claim.", "mediaId": "1462756", "op_no": 31, "date_iso": "2026-05-20", "mem_op": true, "case": "Unimachts Global v. Ayr Energy", "plaintiff": "Unimachts Global", "defendant": "Ayr Energy", "subject_matter": "Trade secrets / fiduciary duty", "key_doctrinal_issue": "TUTSA preemption scope; agent-imputed knowledge for knowing-participation claim", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Fiduciary / Trade Secret", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss (Rule 91a)", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462756/25-bc11a-0083-unimachts-global-v-ayr-energy-2026-tex-bus-31.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 7, "paragraph_count": 17, "motion_type": "Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": "TUTSA §134A.005", "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 91", "cases_cited_count": 6, "top_3_cases_cited": "Super Starr Int'l, LLC v. Fresh Tex Produce, LLC; Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C; Coe, 718 S.W.3d at 369. ScaleFactor, Inc. v. Process Pro Consulting, LLC", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty; Knowing participation in BoFD; Trade secret misappropriation (TUTSA)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": "Y", "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": "Y", "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying the defendants' motion to dismiss under TRCP 91a. To the extent that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty and knowing-participation claims are based on conduct independent of any alleged trade-secret-misappropriation, those claims are not preempted by TUTSA. The defendant may be charged with the knowledge its agents acquired while conducting the defendant’s business. The plaintiffs, therefore, adequately pled the knowledge element of their knowing-participation claim.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trade Secret Tutsa, Knowing Participation Aiding Abetting", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462756", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462756/25-bc11a-0083-unimachts-global-v-ayr-energy-2026-tex-bus-31.pdf", "source_line_range": "L145-L150", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to dismiss denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Knowing participation", "grok_outcome": "Motion to dismiss denied", "grok_key_factors": "Claims independent of TUTSA survive", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Knowing participation" ], "posture_primary": "Rule 91a dismissal", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 30", "year": 2026, "num": 30, "date": "May 19, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "ruling": "Substantive ruling", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Under TCRP 166(g), the Court rules that the plain language of a contract provision that provides for “Consideration Terms” including monthly payments to be “paid in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed)” by the defendant to the plaintiff requires the continuation of such payments after the closure of the fund involved in the transaction.", "mediaId": "1462750", "op_no": 30, "date_iso": "2026-05-19", "mem_op": true, "case": "Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments", "plaintiff": "Cobalt Falcon", "defendant": "AXS Investments", "subject_matter": "Fund consideration terms; perpetual payments", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Construction of \"paid in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed)\" survives fund closure", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Rule 166(g) early legal issues", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462750/25-bc01a-0023-cobalt-falcon-v-axs-investments-2026-tex-bus-30.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 13, "paragraph_count": 15, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 12, "top_3_cases_cited": "Delaware law governs. Advent Int'l Corp. v. Servicios Funerarios GG S.A. de C.V; Manti Holdings, LLC v. Authentix Acquisition Co., Inc; Page v. Village Prac. Mgmt. Grp., LLC", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Declaratory judgment", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Under TCRP 166(g), the Court rules that the plain language of a contract provision that provides for “Consideration Terms” including monthly payments to be “paid in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed)” by the defendant to the plaintiff requires the continuation of such payments after the closure of the fund involved in the transaction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462750", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462750/25-bc01a-0023-cobalt-falcon-v-axs-investments-2026-tex-bus-30.pdf", "source_line_range": "L151-L155", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Contract interpretation ruling", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Contract interpretation ruling", "grok_key_factors": "\"Paid in perpetuity\" clause enforceable", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 29", "year": 2026, "num": 29, "date": "May 16, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": true, "caption": "Plains Pipeline v. Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Indemnification Advancement", "claims": [ "indemnification_advancement" ], "summary": "The parties' contract has indemnification provisions which expired before the plaintiffs asserted the claims at issue before the Court. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denies summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the indemnification provisions are not ambiguous and that the plaintiffs' proposed construction would render other provisions superfluous.", "mediaId": "1462740", "op_no": 29, "date_iso": "2026-05-16", "mem_op": true, "case": "Plains Pipeline v. Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings", "plaintiff": "Plains Pipeline", "defendant": "Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings", "subject_matter": "Indemnification clause expiration", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Indemnification-clause expiration; rejection of construction rendering other provisions superfluous", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment (traditional)", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion should be DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462740/25-bc11a-0024-plains-pipeline-v-arrowhead-gulf-coast-holdings-2026-tex-bus-29.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 5, "paragraph_count": 6, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 11, "top_3_cases_cited": "Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Xerox State Local Sols., Inc; MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Tex. Utilities Elec. Co", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Indemnification; Declaratory judgment", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": "Y", "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "The parties' contract has indemnification provisions which expired before the plaintiffs asserted the claims at issue before the Court. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denies summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the indemnification provisions are not ambiguous and that the plaintiffs' proposed construction would render other provisions superfluous.", "claim_summary": "Indemnification Advancement", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462740", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462740/25-bc11a-0024-plains-pipeline-v-arrowhead-gulf-coast-holdings-2026-tex-bus-29.pdf", "source_line_range": "L156-L159", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment for defendants", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Indemnification", "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment for defendants", "grok_key_factors": "Indemnification provisions expired", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Indemnification" ], "disposition_code_archived": "DENIED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 28", "year": 2026, "num": 28, "date": "May 15, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Camino Real Developers v. RivenRock", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "A company agreement for an LLC (the plaintiff) provided that a 50% member was solely responsible for capital contributions and that if it did not perform, the other members could admit a new capital provider and proportionately dilute the 50% member's interest. The defendant later purchased the 50% interest. The other members made a capital call and the defendant refused to contribute. The other members admitted a new member and diluted the defendant's interest accordingly. The LLC then sued the defendant to confirm the validity of the dilution. The court held that the defendant's interest in the LLC did not exist separately from the company agreement and granted summary judgment in favor of the LLC.", "mediaId": "1462733", "op_no": 28, "date_iso": "2026-05-15", "mem_op": true, "case": "Camino Real Developers v. RivenRock", "plaintiff": "Camino Real Developers (LLC)", "defendant": "RivenRock", "subject_matter": "LLC company agreement / capital call / dilution", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Member's LLC interest does not exist separately from company agreement; dilution mechanism enforceable", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462733/25-bc08b-0015-camino-real-developers-v-rivenrock-2026-tex-bus-28.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 24, "paragraph_count": 59, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "TBOC §101.052; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 33, "top_3_cases_cited": "ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann; MMP, Ltd. v. Jones; Stanfield v. Neubaum", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Declaratory judgment (LLC dilution validity)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "A company agreement for an LLC (the plaintiff) provided that a 50% member was solely responsible for capital contributions and that if it did not perform, the other members could admit a new capital provider and proportionately dilute the 50% member's interest. The defendant later purchased the 50% interest. The other members made a capital call and the defendant refused to contribute. The other members admitted a new member and diluted the defendant's interest accordingly. The LLC then sued the defendant to confirm the validity of the dilution. The court held that the defendant's interest in the LLC did not exist separately from the company agreement and granted summary judgment in favor of the LLC.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462733", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462733/25-bc08b-0015-camino-real-developers-v-rivenrock-2026-tex-bus-28.pdf", "source_line_range": "L160-L165", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment for plaintiff", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "LLC dilution / capital call", "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment for plaintiff", "grok_key_factors": "Dilution valid under company agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "LLC dilution / capital call" ], "disposition_code_archived": "GRANTED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 27", "year": 2026, "num": 27, "date": "May 14, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "DrinkPAK v. PRIII/Crow Building C", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remanded to district court", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Remanding a case back to district court because a notice of removal was untimely. The amount in controversy was known to be over $5 million on the date of service, and the notice of removal was filed more than 30 days after service. Pre-litigation demand letters may establish the amount in controversy. Rule 408 does not prohibit the court from considering pre-suit demand letters when determining jurisdiction.", "mediaId": "1462717", "op_no": 27, "date_iso": "2026-05-14", "mem_op": true, "case": "DrinkPAK v. PRIII/Crow Building C", "plaintiff": "DrinkPAK", "defendant": "PRIII/Crow Building C", "subject_matter": "Removal timeliness / amount in controversy", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Pre-suit demand letters can establish amount in controversy; TRE 408 does not bar use for jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; Removal mechanics; Removal-deadline (30-day)", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "entered its TBC Remand Order granting DrinkPAK's Remand Motion.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462717/26-bc08a-0007-drinkpak-v-priii-crow-building-c-2026-tex-bus-27.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 13, "paragraph_count": 41, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": 5000000.0, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 355", "cases_cited_count": 16, "top_3_cases_cited": "Black Mountain SWD, LP v. NGL Water Sols. Permian, LLC; OWL AssetCo 1, LLC v. EOG Res., Inc; Ten 31 LLC ex rel. SummerMoon Holdings LLC v. Tarbox", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Remanding a case back to district court because a notice of removal was untimely. The amount in controversy was known to be over $5 million on the date of service, and the notice of removal was filed more than 30 days after service. Pre-litigation demand letters may establish the amount in controversy. Rule 408 does not prohibit the court from considering pre-suit demand letters when determining jurisdiction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "media_id": "1462717", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462717/26-bc08a-0007-drinkpak-v-priii-crow-building-c-2026-tex-bus-27.pdf", "source_line_range": "L166-L170", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Untimely removal; pre-litigation demand letters establish amount in controversy", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_archived": "REMANDED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 26", "year": 2026, "num": 26, "date": "May 13, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": true, "caption": "Westlake Longview v. Eastman Chemical", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty" ], "summary": "Granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sustaining in part and overruling in part the parties' competing objections to summary-judgment evidence. The Court construes aspects of a sales and exchanges contract requiring the defendant to offer, and the plaintiffs to either buy or exchange, defendant's “Excess Ethylene Quantities.” The contract provides that Delaware law governs. Unlike Texas law, Delaware law implies into every contract a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.", "mediaId": "1462714", "op_no": 26, "date_iso": "2026-05-13", "mem_op": true, "case": "Westlake Longview v. Eastman Chemical", "plaintiff": "Westlake Longview", "defendant": "Eastman Chemical", "subject_matter": "Petrochemicals / ethylene supply contract", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Delaware-choice-of-law contract imports implied covenant of good faith absent in Texas law", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment (with cross-objections)", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462714/24-bc11b-0023-westlake-longview-v-eastman-chemical-2026-tex-bus-26.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 40, "paragraph_count": 65, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 14, "top_3_cases_cited": "Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc; Thompson St. Cap. Partners IV, L.P. v. Sonova U.S. Hearing Instruments, LLC; Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Breach of implied covenant of good faith", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sustaining in part and overruling in part the parties' competing objections to summary-judgment evidence. The Court construes aspects of a sales and exchanges contract requiring the defendant to offer, and the plaintiffs to either buy or exchange, defendant's “Excess Ethylene Quantities.” The contract provides that Delaware law governs. Unlike Texas law, Delaware law implies into every contract a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462714", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462714/24-bc11b-0023-westlake-longview-v-eastman-chemical-2026-tex-bus-26.pdf", "source_line_range": "L171-L176", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Delaware law implies covenant of good faith and fair dealing", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 25", "year": 2026, "num": 25, "date": "May 12, 2026", "division": "4th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "In a plea to the jurisdiction, Defendant challenged the Court’s authority to hear this case by arguing that the Plaintiff’s claims do not meet the statutory amount in controversy required for this court’s jurisdiction. Applying Texas’s well-established plea to the jurisdiction standard, the Court concludes it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction is denied.", "mediaId": "1462711", "op_no": 25, "date_iso": "2026-05-12", "mem_op": false, "case": "Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures", "plaintiff": "Pradera SFR", "defendant": "American Housing Ventures", "subject_matter": "Single-family rental / housing", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Texas plea-to-the-jurisdiction burden-shifting standard applied; subject-matter jurisdiction confirmed", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "denied.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462711/25-bc04a-0015-pradera-sfr-v-american-housing-ventures-2026-tex-bus-25.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 12, "paragraph_count": 46, "motion_type": "Plea to the Jurisdiction", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. Gov't Code §25A.004", "cases_cited_count": 4, "top_3_cases_cited": "Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue; Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda; Ten 3 LLC ex rel. v. Tarbox", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": "February 27, 2026", "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": "N", "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In a plea to the jurisdiction, Defendant challenged the Court’s authority to hear this case by arguing that the Plaintiff’s claims do not meet the statutory amount in controversy required for this court’s jurisdiction. Applying Texas’s well-established plea to the jurisdiction standard, the Court concludes it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction is denied.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1462711", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462711/25-bc04a-0015-pradera-sfr-v-american-housing-ventures-2026-tex-bus-25.pdf", "source_line_range": "L177-L180", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Amount in controversy satisfied", "claims_adjudicated": [], "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 24", "year": 2026, "num": 24, "date": "May 11, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Attorney's fees", "ruling": "Order issued", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Ordering that each side pay its own attorney's fees after considering the record, the parties’ stipulation, and their waiver of their opportunity to persuade the court regarding an attorneys’ fees request.", "mediaId": "1462706", "op_no": 24, "date_iso": "2026-05-11", "mem_op": true, "case": "Dallas Sports Club v. DSE Hockey Arena", "plaintiff": "Dallas Sports Club", "defendant": "DSE Hockey Arena", "subject_matter": "Sports venue / contract construction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Each side bears own fees per stipulation and waiver", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Fees", "procedural_posture": "Final judgment / fees ruling", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462706/25-bc01b-0049-dallas-sports-group-v-dse-hockey-club-2026-tex-bus-24.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 8, "paragraph_count": 17, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.009", "cases_cited_count": 3, "top_3_cases_cited": "Dallas Sports Group, LLC v. DSE Hockey Club, L.P; MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P; Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lazy Nine Mun. Dist", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Attorney's fees", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Ordering that each side pay its own attorney's fees after considering the record, the parties’ stipulation, and their waiver of their opportunity to persuade the court regarding an attorneys’ fees request.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462706", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462706/25-bc01b-0049-dallas-sports-group-v-dse-hockey-club-2026-tex-bus-24.pdf", "source_line_range": "L181-L185", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Each side bears own fees", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Attorney's fees", "grok_outcome": "Each side bears own fees", "grok_key_factors": "Post-stipulation waiver", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Attorney's fees" ], "audit_status": "PATCHED_2026-05-23_caption_corrected_via_PDF_cover (old: \"Dallas Sports Club v. DSE Hockey Arena\")", "posture_primary": "Attorney's fees", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 23", "year": 2026, "num": 23, "date": "May 8, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Denied (motion to remand denied → TBC retains)", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a motion to remand. Section 25A.006(f)(2) establishes a deadline for removal to Business Court, not a prohibition on removal until thirty days after the TI application is granted, denied, or denied by operation of law. Mere attorney argument cannot establish that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million. Motive for removal is not relevant to the remand analysis.", "mediaId": "1462705", "op_no": 23, "date_iso": "2026-05-08", "mem_op": true, "case": "Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson", "plaintiff": "Aspire Commercial", "defendant": "Stephenson", "subject_matter": "Commercial contract / TI proceeding", "key_doctrinal_issue": "§25A.006(f)(2) sets removal deadline, not prohibition; attorney argument insufficient on AIC; motive not relevant", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; Removal mechanics; Removal-deadline (30-day)", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER STEPHENSON'S MOTION TO REMAND", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462705/26-bc11b-0040-aspire-commercial-v-stephenson-2026-tex-bus-23.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 12, "paragraph_count": 41, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": "TUTSA §134A.005", "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. Gov't Code §25A.004; Tex. Gov't Code §25A.006; Tex. R. Civ. P. 355", "cases_cited_count": 11, "top_3_cases_cited": "Ten 31 LLC ex rel. SummerMoon Holdings LLC v. Tarbox; United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Brite; Tex. Tech Univ. Sys. v. Martinez", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Temporary injunction; Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a motion to remand. Section 25A.006(f)(2) establishes a deadline for removal to Business Court, not a prohibition on removal until thirty days after the TI application is granted, denied, or denied by operation of law. Mere attorney argument cannot establish that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million. Motive for removal is not relevant to the remand analysis.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "media_id": "1462705", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462705/26-bc11b-0040-aspire-commercial-v-stephenson-2026-tex-bus-23.pdf", "source_line_range": "L186-L193", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "§25A.006(f)(2) removal deadline; attorney argument insufficient on amount", "claims_adjudicated": [], "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 22", "year": 2026, "num": 22, "date": "May 6, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "The Mark at Weatherford Owner v. German", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract, Buy Sell Drag Along", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract", "buy_sell_drag_along" ], "summary": "Granting summary judgment on a claim that, under a contract, fees were legally owed at closing and therefore “payable,” whether or not funds were available to pay, and that failure to pay constituted a default, which triggered a put-right provision.", "mediaId": "1462690", "op_no": 22, "date_iso": "2026-05-06", "mem_op": true, "case": "The Mark at Weatherford Owner v. German", "plaintiff": "The Mark at Weatherford Owner", "defendant": "German", "subject_matter": "Real estate / put-right contract", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Fees \"payable\" at closing regardless of fund availability; failure triggers put-right", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462690/25-bc08b-0025-the-mark-at-weatherford-owner-v-german-2026-tex-bus-22.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 25, "paragraph_count": 64, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 26, "top_3_cases_cited": "TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a. ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann; MMP, Ltd. v. Jones; Stanfield v. Neubaum", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Specific performance (put-right)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": "Y", "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting summary judgment on a claim that, under a contract, fees were legally owed at closing and therefore “payable,” whether or not funds were available to pay, and that failure to pay constituted a default, which triggered a put-right provision.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract, Buy Sell Drag Along", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462690", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462690/25-bc08b-0025-the-mark-at-weatherford-owner-v-german-2026-tex-bus-22.pdf", "source_line_range": "L194-L198", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "grok_key_factors": "Fees payable at closing triggered default and put-right", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 21", "year": 2026, "num": 21, "date": "May 4, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Thompson v. Anchor Capital GP", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract, Accounting Books Records", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract", "accounting_books_records" ], "summary": "Denying in part and granting in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a note and security agreement by failing to allow it to inspect \"books and records\" to ensure collateral was adequately protected because the defendant produced at least a scintilla of evidence that he complied with that contractual duty. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a contractual term requiring his \"personal financial statement, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the [plaintiff]\" by not providing an audited financial statement. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a contract requiring him not to commit to new investments without written pre-approval because no damages were proven. Granting summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant is not entitled to incentive compensation after determining he was fired for cause because he failed to produce any evidence that a plaintiff intended to waive the nonwaiver provision’s writing requirement.", "mediaId": "1462666", "op_no": 21, "date_iso": "2026-05-04", "mem_op": true, "case": "Thompson v. Anchor Capital GP", "plaintiff": "Thompson", "defendant": "Anchor Capital GP", "subject_matter": "Private fund / GP-LP relationship / note and security agreement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Scintilla-of-evidence standard for inspection; nonwaiver provision; for-cause termination", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Records", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462666/25-bc01b-0038-thompson-v-anchor-capital-gp-2026-tex-bus-21.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (note and security agreement); Incentive compensation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": "Y", "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying in part and granting in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a note and security agreement by failing to allow it to inspect \"books and records\" to ensure collateral was adequately protected because the defendant produced at least a scintilla of evidence that he complied with that contractual duty. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a contractual term requiring his \"personal financial statement, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the [plaintiff]\" by not providing an audited financial statement. Denying summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant violated a contract requiring him not to commit to new investments without written pre-approval because no damages were proven. Granting summary judgment on a plaintiff's argument that a defendant is not entitled to incentive compensation after determining he was fired for cause because he failed to produce any evidence that a plaintiff intended to waive the nonwaiver provision’s writing requirement.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract, Accounting Books Records", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462666", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462666/25-bc01b-0038-thompson-v-anchor-capital-gp-2026-tex-bus-21.pdf", "source_line_range": "L199-L206", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Books-and-records, financial-statement, investment-approval, incentive-compensation claims", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 20", "year": 2026, "num": 20, "date": "May 1, 2026", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": true, "caption": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to strike the plaintiffs' summary-judgment extrinsic evidence of a course of performance because the contract is susceptible to only one meaning.", "mediaId": "1462668", "op_no": 20, "date_iso": "2026-05-01", "mem_op": true, "case": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "plaintiff": "May", "defendant": "INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas contracts", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Course-of-performance extrinsic evidence barred when contract susceptible to only one meaning", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion to strike summary-judgment evidence", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462668/25-bc04b-0007-may-v-ineos-usa-oil-gas-2026-tex-bus-20.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to strike the plaintiffs' summary-judgment extrinsic evidence of a course of performance because the contract is susceptible to only one meaning.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462668", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462668/25-bc04b-0007-may-v-ineos-usa-oil-gas-2026-tex-bus-20.pdf", "source_line_range": "L207-L211", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to strike extrinsic evidence granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Motion to strike extrinsic evidence granted", "grok_key_factors": "Contract unambiguous", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 19", "year": 2026, "num": 19, "date": "April 23, 2026", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Enosis Investments v. Jensen", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Veil Piercing Alter Ego, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty", "veil_piercing_alter_ego", "joint_venture_partnership_dispute" ], "summary": "Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g) and the parties’ Joint Advisory on Early Legal Issues, the Court rules on whether Texas law recognizes the asserted fiduciary duties under the facts alleged here. The Court holds: (1) The pleadings do not support a joint venture because they do not allege an agreement to share profits and losses; additionally, the company agreements explicitly disclaim the existence of any joint venture and expressly supersede any prior or contemporaneous agreements; (2) While the manager of these manager-managed LLCs may owe fiduciary duties to the LLCs, a non-managing member generally does not; nor is a corporate manager’s fiduciary duty passed through to its individual officers and owners absent some basis for piercing the corporate veil.", "mediaId": "1462667", "op_no": 19, "date_iso": "2026-04-23", "mem_op": false, "case": "Enosis Investments v. Jensen", "plaintiff": "Enosis Investments", "defendant": "Jensen", "subject_matter": "LLC / manager fiduciary duties", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No joint venture absent profit-loss agreement; non-managing members owe no fiduciary duties; corporate manager's duties don't pass through to individual officers absent veil-piercing basis", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Fiduciary / Entity Governance", "procedural_posture": "Rule 166(g) early legal issues", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462667/25-bc03a-0008-enosis-investments-v-jensen-2026-tex-bus-19.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty; Joint venture; Veil piercing", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": "Y", "Joint venture / partnership": "Y", "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g) and the parties’ Joint Advisory on Early Legal Issues, the Court rules on whether Texas law recognizes the asserted fiduciary duties under the facts alleged here. The Court holds: (1) The pleadings do not support a joint venture because they do not allege an agreement to share profits and losses; additionally, the company agreements explicitly disclaim the existence of any joint venture and expressly supersede any prior or contemporaneous agreements; (2) While the manager of these manager-managed LLCs may owe fiduciary duties to the LLCs, a non-managing member generally does not; nor is a corporate manager’s fiduciary duty passed through to its individual officers and owners absent some basis for piercing the corporate veil.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Veil Piercing Alter Ego, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462667", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462667/25-bc03a-0008-enosis-investments-v-jensen-2026-tex-bus-19.pdf", "source_line_range": "L212-L216", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Rule 166(g) ruling on fiduciary duties", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Joint venture", "grok_outcome": "Rule 166(g) ruling on fiduciary duties", "grok_key_factors": "No joint venture; non-managing member owes no fiduciary duty", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Joint venture" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 18", "year": 2026, "num": 18, "date": "April 10, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting summary judgment on a claim that a company agreement required only majority board approval to transfer membership units and did not also require the consent of two directors.", "mediaId": "1462563", "op_no": 18, "date_iso": "2026-04-10", "mem_op": true, "case": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich", "plaintiff": "Energy Founders Fund", "defendant": "Daskevich", "subject_matter": "LLC company agreement / membership-unit transfer", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Majority board approval sufficient; two-director consent not additionally required", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462563/26-bc11a-0004-energy-founders-fund-v-daskevich-2026-tex-bus-18.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (LLC company agreement)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting summary judgment on a claim that a company agreement required only majority board approval to transfer membership units and did not also require the consent of two directors.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462563", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462563/26-bc11a-0004-energy-founders-fund-v-daskevich-2026-tex-bus-18.pdf", "source_line_range": "L217-L221", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "grok_key_factors": "Majority board approval sufficient for unit transfer", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 17", "year": 2026, "num": 17, "date": "April 9, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Motion to compel", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Indemnification Advancement", "claims": [ "indemnification_advancement" ], "summary": "Denying defendant/counter-plaintiff's motion to compel advancement of legal fees against a third-party defendant because the claims against him were not brought \"by reason of\" his service as a director of the third-party defendant, as required to receive advancement of legal fees under the third-party defendant's company agreement.", "mediaId": "1462558", "op_no": 17, "date_iso": "2026-04-09", "mem_op": true, "case": "Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich", "plaintiff": "Energy Founders Fund", "defendant": "Daskevich", "subject_matter": "LLC / director advancement rights", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Claims must be brought \"by reason of\" director service to trigger advancement obligation", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Advancement", "procedural_posture": "Motion to compel advancement", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462558/26-bc11a-0004-energy-founders-fund-v-daskevich-2026-tex-bus-17.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Advancement of legal fees", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": "Y", "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying defendant/counter-plaintiff's motion to compel advancement of legal fees against a third-party defendant because the claims against him were not brought \"by reason of\" his service as a director of the third-party defendant, as required to receive advancement of legal fees under the third-party defendant's company agreement.", "claim_summary": "Indemnification Advancement", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462558", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462558/26-bc11a-0004-energy-founders-fund-v-daskevich-2026-tex-bus-17.pdf", "source_line_range": "L222-L226", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to compel advancement denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Advancement of fees", "grok_outcome": "Motion to compel advancement denied", "grok_key_factors": "Claims not \"by reason of\" director service", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Advancement of fees" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Motion to compel", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 16", "year": 2026, "num": 16, "date": "April 8, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Daimer Truck Financial Services v. Vanguard National Trailer Corp.", "industry": "Transportation", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting certain defendants' special appearance and dismissing all claims against them because the plaintiff did not establish that its claims against them arose out of their conduct in Texas.", "mediaId": "1462557", "op_no": 16, "date_iso": "2026-04-08", "mem_op": true, "case": "Daimer Truck Financial Services v. Vanguard National Trailer Corp.", "plaintiff": "Daimler Truck Financial Services", "defendant": "Vanguard National Trailer Corp.", "subject_matter": "Commercial finance / vehicle leasing", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Specific-jurisdiction failure; claims did not arise out of Texas conduct", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462557/25-bc08a-0011-daimer-truck-financial-services-v-vanguard-national-trailer-corp-2026-tex-bus-16.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting certain defendants' special appearance and dismissing all claims against them because the plaintiff did not establish that its claims against them arose out of their conduct in Texas.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462557", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462557/25-bc08a-0011-daimer-truck-financial-services-v-vanguard-national-trailer-corp-2026-tex-bus-16.pdf", "source_line_range": "L227-L231", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "grok_key_factors": "No specific jurisdiction", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 15", "year": 2026, "num": 15, "date": "April 2, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion discusses contract construction principles applied to four separate but related contracts among three parties, executed over a one-year period. It also concerns the inconsistent conduct requirement for implied waiver by conduct necessary to overcome a contractual nonwaiver by conduct clause.", "mediaId": "1462546", "op_no": 15, "date_iso": "2026-04-02", "mem_op": false, "case": "Dallas Sports Club v. DSE Hockey Arena", "plaintiff": "Dallas Sports Club", "defendant": "DSE Hockey Arena", "subject_matter": "Sports venue / multi-contract construction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Four related contracts among three parties; nonwaiver-by-conduct overcome only by inconsistent conduct", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment / contract construction", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462546/25-bc01b-0049-dallas-sports-group-v-dse-hockey-club-2026-tex-bus-15.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Implied waiver", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion discusses contract construction principles applied to four separate but related contracts among three parties, executed over a one-year period. It also concerns the inconsistent conduct requirement for implied waiver by conduct necessary to overcome a contractual nonwaiver by conduct clause.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462546", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462546/25-bc01b-0049-dallas-sports-group-v-dse-hockey-club-2026-tex-bus-15.pdf", "source_line_range": "L232-L236", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Contract-construction ruling", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Implied waiver", "grok_outcome": "Contract-construction ruling", "grok_key_factors": "Inconsistent-conduct requirement for waiver", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Implied waiver" ], "audit_status": "PATCHED_2026-05-23_caption_corrected_via_PDF_cover (old: \"Dallas Sports Club v. DSE Hockey Arena\")", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 14", "year": 2026, "num": 14, "date": "March 27, 2026", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": true, "caption": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Partially granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the parties' Contracts are unambiguous with respect to the issues adjudicated in this Order, and holding as a matter of law that: (1) the Contracts conveyed to Defendants a vested fee simple determinable in the Leases as described in this Opinion; (2) no partial termination or corresponding reversion of Defendants' interest can occur until cessation of continuous drilling operations by Defendants; (3) the Contracts' earned-acreage provisions operate as special limitations on Defendants' property interest; and (4) Plaintiffs' 30% reversionary back-in interest is triggered at Payout, which occurs upon and is calculated based on cost recovery for each Earning Well under the process described in the Agreement, which aggregates all specified costs on the corresponding Earned Acreage; Payout cannot occur independently as to a nonearning well.", "mediaId": "1462494", "op_no": 14, "date_iso": "2026-03-27", "mem_op": true, "case": "May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "plaintiff": "May", "defendant": "INEOS USA Oil & Gas", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / earned-acreage contracts", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Vested fee simple determinable; earned-acreage provisions as special limitations; 30% reversionary back-in interest at Payout", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Property", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462494/25-bc04b-0007-may-v-ineos-usa-oil-gas-2026-tex-bus-14.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Declaratory judgment (oil & gas property interest)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Partially granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the parties' Contracts are unambiguous with respect to the issues adjudicated in this Order, and holding as a matter of law that: (1) the Contracts conveyed to Defendants a vested fee simple determinable in the Leases as described in this Opinion; (2) no partial termination or corresponding reversion of Defendants' interest can occur until cessation of continuous drilling operations by Defendants; (3) the Contracts' earned-acreage provisions operate as special limitations on Defendants' property interest; and (4) Plaintiffs' 30% reversionary back-in interest is triggered at Payout, which occurs upon and is calculated based on cost recovery for each Earning Well under the process described in the Agreement, which aggregates all specified costs on the corresponding Earned Acreage; Payout cannot occur independently as to a nonearning well.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462494", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462494/25-bc04b-0007-may-v-ineos-usa-oil-gas-2026-tex-bus-14.pdf", "source_line_range": "L237-L244", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Fee-simple determinable; earned-acreage provisions; Payout calculation", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 13", "year": 2026, "num": 13, "date": "March 13, 2026", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "GoSecure v. CrowdStrike", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "Trade Secret Tutsa", "claims": [ "trade_secret_tutsa" ], "summary": "This intellectual-property dispute between two companies based in California arises out of the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets that initially occurred in California some fifteen years ago. Defendant CrowdStrike, Inc. (CrowdStrike) filed a special appearance, which the Court grants. The Court holds that it lacks general jurisdiction over CrowdStrike because, despite having a large office and sales in Texas, Crowdstrike does not have its principal place of business in Texas and is not “essentially at home” here under the exceptional-case doctrine. The Court holds that it lacks specific jurisdiction over CrowdStrike because plaintiff’s claims do not “arise out of or relate to” CrowdStrike’s Texas contacts, which occurred years after the initial alleged misappropriation and are peripheral to, rather than substantially connected to, the operative facts of the case.", "mediaId": "1462462", "op_no": 13, "date_iso": "2026-03-13", "mem_op": false, "case": "GoSecure v. CrowdStrike", "plaintiff": "GoSecure", "defendant": "CrowdStrike", "subject_matter": "Cybersecurity / trade secrets", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No general jurisdiction (not 'essentially at home'); no specific jurisdiction (Texas contacts peripheral to operative facts in CA)", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Trade Secret / IP", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462462/25-bc03a-0012-gosecure-v-crowdstrike-2026-tex-bus-13.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Trade secret misappropriation; Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": "Y", "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This intellectual-property dispute between two companies based in California arises out of the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets that initially occurred in California some fifteen years ago. Defendant CrowdStrike, Inc. (CrowdStrike) filed a special appearance, which the Court grants. The Court holds that it lacks general jurisdiction over CrowdStrike because, despite having a large office and sales in Texas, Crowdstrike does not have its principal place of business in Texas and is not “essentially at home” here under the exceptional-case doctrine. The Court holds that it lacks specific jurisdiction over CrowdStrike because plaintiff’s claims do not “arise out of or relate to” CrowdStrike’s Texas contacts, which occurred years after the initial alleged misappropriation and are peripheral to, rather than substantially connected to, the operative facts of the case.", "claim_summary": "Trade Secret Tutsa", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1462462", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462462/25-bc03a-0012-gosecure-v-crowdstrike-2026-tex-bus-13.pdf", "source_line_range": "L245-L250", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Trade-secret misappropriation", "grok_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "grok_key_factors": "No general or specific jurisdiction", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Trade-secret misappropriation" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 12", "year": 2026, "num": 12, "date": "March 12, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Galderma Laboratories v. Brenner", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Temporary injunction", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract, Trade Secret Tutsa, Non Compete Non Solicit, Injunctive Relief", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract", "trade_secret_tutsa", "non_compete_non_solicit", "injunctive_relief" ], "summary": "Granting an application for a temporary injunction against the defendant (the plaintiff's former employee) based on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim with respect to a non-compete agreement and reforming the scope of services covered by the non-compete agreement. Denying temporary injunctive relief based on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim with respect to a customer non-solicit agreement, a worker non-solicit agreement, and a confidentiality agreement. Denying temporary injunctive relief with respect to alleged TUTSA violations.", "mediaId": "1462445", "op_no": 12, "date_iso": "2026-03-12", "mem_op": true, "case": "Galderma Laboratories v. Brenner", "plaintiff": "Galderma Laboratories", "defendant": "Brenner (former employee)", "subject_matter": "Employment / non-compete", "key_doctrinal_issue": "TI granted on non-compete (with scope reformation); denied on customer/worker non-solicit, confidentiality, and TUTSA", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Restrictive Covenant / Trade Secret", "procedural_posture": "Motion for temporary injunction", "result": "INJUNCTION_GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462445/26-bc08b-0003-galderma-laboratories-v-brenner-2026-tex-bus-12.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (non-compete); Non-solicitation; Trade secret misappropriation (TUTSA); Confidentiality", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": "Y", "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": "Y", "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": "Y", "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting an application for a temporary injunction against the defendant (the plaintiff's former employee) based on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim with respect to a non-compete agreement and reforming the scope of services covered by the non-compete agreement. Denying temporary injunctive relief based on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim with respect to a customer non-solicit agreement, a worker non-solicit agreement, and a confidentiality agreement. Denying temporary injunctive relief with respect to alleged TUTSA violations.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract, Trade Secret Tutsa, Non Compete Non Solicit, Injunctive Relief", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462445", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462445/26-bc08b-0003-galderma-laboratories-v-brenner-2026-tex-bus-12.pdf", "source_line_range": "L251-L256", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial temporary injunction granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Non-compete, non-solicit, confidentiality, TUTSA", "grok_outcome": "Partial temporary injunction granted", "grok_key_factors": "Non-compete reformed", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Non-compete, non-solicit, confidentiality, TUTSA" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Temporary injunction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 11", "year": 2026, "num": 11, "date": "March 11, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Crain v. Northern", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Derivative Action", "claims": [ "derivative_action" ], "summary": "Granting the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction against the plaintiff's derivative claims on entities' behalf for lack of standing because the plaintiff was no longer a member of the entities when he filed suit.", "mediaId": "1462442", "op_no": 11, "date_iso": "2026-03-11", "mem_op": true, "case": "Crain v. Northern", "plaintiff": "Crain", "defendant": "Northern", "subject_matter": "Derivative-claim standing", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Plaintiff was no longer a member of the entities when suit filed — derivative standing lost", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Derivative / Entity Governance", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462442/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2026-tex-bus-11.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Derivative claim", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": "Y", "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction against the plaintiff's derivative claims on entities' behalf for lack of standing because the plaintiff was no longer a member of the entities when he filed suit.", "claim_summary": "Derivative Action", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462442", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462442/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2026-tex-bus-11.pdf", "source_line_range": "L257-L261", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": true, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction granted", "grok_key_factors": "Plaintiff no longer a member at filing", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Derivative action" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 10", "year": 2026, "num": 10, "date": "March 4, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Mesquite Energy v. Sanchez Oil & Gas", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses the division of settlement funds and the entitlement to reimbursement of litigation expenses arising from a prior lawsuit. The settlement funds were placed in an escrow account in 2024 pending the resolution of the present dispute.", "mediaId": "1462364", "op_no": 10, "date_iso": "2026-03-04", "mem_op": false, "case": "Mesquite Energy v. Sanchez Oil & Gas", "plaintiff": "Mesquite Energy", "defendant": "Sanchez Oil & Gas", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / settlement-fund allocation", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Allocation of settlement funds and litigation-expense reimbursement from 2024 prior lawsuit", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Settlement / Fees", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on escrow allocation", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "ENTERED 3/4/2026 INTRODUCTION 1 The Court held a bench trial from January 12 through January 16, 2026.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462364/24-bc11b-0018-mesquite-energy-v-sanchez-oil-2026-tex-bus-10.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 12, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 4, "top_3_cases_cited": "Boeing Co. v. Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n; Eun Bok Lee v. Ho Chang Lee; Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Settlement-fund allocation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the division of settlement funds and the entitlement to reimbursement of litigation expenses arising from a prior lawsuit. The settlement funds were placed in an escrow account in 2024 pending the resolution of the present dispute.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462364", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462364/24-bc11b-0018-mesquite-energy-v-sanchez-oil-2026-tex-bus-10.pdf", "source_line_range": "L262-L266", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruling on settlement funds", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Settlement-fund division", "grok_outcome": "Ruling on settlement funds", "grok_key_factors": "Escrow-account allocation", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Settlement-fund division" ], "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 9", "year": 2026, "num": 9, "date": "March 3, 2026", "division": "11th", "judge": "Dorfman", "memOp": true, "caption": "Yaun v. Battle & Sands Energy", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Denied (motion to remand denied → TBC retains)", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a motion to remand the case back to district court because the alleged agreement in the case plainly meets the definition of a qualified transaction, provided that under its terms the plaintiff may be “entitled to receive” consideration that meets the $5 million threshold, and the defendants' pleadings and the evidence before the Court plainly establishes the possibility—plausibility, even—that the plaintiffs' damages claim could satisfy the Business Court’s jurisdictional minimum for a qualified transaction under §25A.004(d)(1).", "mediaId": "1462351", "op_no": 9, "date_iso": "2026-03-03", "mem_op": true, "case": "Yaun v. Battle & Sands Energy", "plaintiff": "Yaun", "defendant": "Battle & Sands Energy", "subject_matter": "Energy / qualified transaction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "§25A.004(d)(1) qualified-transaction threshold met where plaintiff \"entitled to receive\" >$5M", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "hereby DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462351/25-bc11b-0094-yaun-v-battle-sands-energy-2026-tex-bus-9.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 7, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": 10000000.0, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 354", "cases_cited_count": 8, "top_3_cases_cited": "Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Tellez v. City of Socorro; Ten 31, LLC v. Tarbox; Tex. Bus. 1. Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a motion to remand the case back to district court because the alleged agreement in the case plainly meets the definition of a qualified transaction, provided that under its terms the plaintiff may be “entitled to receive” consideration that meets the $5 million threshold, and the defendants' pleadings and the evidence before the Court plainly establishes the possibility—plausibility, even—that the plaintiffs' damages claim could satisfy the Business Court’s jurisdictional minimum for a qualified transaction under §25A.004(d)(1).", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1462351", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462351/25-bc11b-0094-yaun-v-battle-sands-energy-2026-tex-bus-9.pdf", "source_line_range": "L267-L270", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "\"Entitled to receive\" language satisfies $5M threshold", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 8", "year": 2026, "num": 8, "date": "February 24, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": false, "caption": "BNSF Railway v. Level 3 Communications", "industry": "Transportation", "posture": "Arbitration award review", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying a motion to vacate the same award, the Court holds: the parties’ contract and applicable law gave the arbitration panel authority to decide both substantive and procedural arbitrability questions. Judgment is entered confirming the award.", "mediaId": "1462181", "op_no": 8, "date_iso": "2026-02-24", "mem_op": false, "case": "BNSF Railway v. Level 3 Communications", "plaintiff": "BNSF Railway", "defendant": "Level 3 Communications", "subject_matter": "Railroad / telecom / arbitration", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Parties' contract gave arbitrators authority over both substantive and procedural arbitrability", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Arbitration", "procedural_posture": "Motion to confirm / vacate arbitration award", "result": "ARBITRATION_CONFIRMED", "disposition_code": "AWARD_CONFIRMED", "disposition_text": "entered confirming the award.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462181/25-bc01a-0025-bnsf-railway-v-level-3-communications-2026-tex-bus-8.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 16, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion to Dismiss", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": "contract", "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 10, "top_3_cases_cited": "Forest Oil Corp. v. El Rucio Land & Cattle Co., Inc; The FAA and TAA both apply. Moody Nat'l Grapevine MT, LP v. TIC Grapevine 2, LP; Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Arbitration confirmation; Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying a motion to vacate the same award, the Court holds: the parties’ contract and applicable law gave the arbitration panel authority to decide both substantive and procedural arbitrability questions. Judgment is entered confirming the award.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462181", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462181/25-bc01a-0025-bnsf-railway-v-level-3-communications-2026-tex-bus-8.pdf", "source_line_range": "L271-L275", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Arbitration award confirmed", "canonical_disposition_code": "AWARD_CONFIRMED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Arbitration award confirmed", "grok_key_factors": "Panel had authority on arbitrability", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_archived": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Arbitration award review", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 7", "year": 2026, "num": 7, "date": "February 19, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways", "industry": "Transportation", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying the defendant's special appearance because the Court has specific jurisdiction over the defendant.", "mediaId": "1462153", "op_no": 7, "date_iso": "2026-02-19", "mem_op": true, "case": "American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways", "plaintiff": "American Airlines", "defendant": "JetBlue Airways", "subject_matter": "Aviation / commercial", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Specific jurisdiction over defendant established", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462153/25-bc08a-0007-american-airlines-v-jetblue-airways-2026-tex-bus-7.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 11, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Special Appearance", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 120", "cases_cited_count": 21, "top_3_cases_cited": "Kelly v. Gen. Interior Const., Inc; Am. Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman; Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying the defendant's special appearance because the Court has specific jurisdiction over the defendant.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1462153", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462153/25-bc08a-0007-american-airlines-v-jetblue-airways-2026-tex-bus-7.pdf", "source_line_range": "L276-L280", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance denied", "grok_key_factors": "Specific jurisdiction established", "claims_adjudicated": [], "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 6", "year": 2026, "num": 6, "date": "February 3, 2026", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": false, "caption": "Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Substantive ruling", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trade Secret Tutsa, Knowing Participation Aiding Abetting", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty", "trade_secret_tutsa", "knowing_participation_aiding_abetting" ], "summary": "Applying the court's jurisdictional balance-shifting framework, the court holds that the defendant's removal notice, which pleaded more than five million dollars in controversy, satisfied the statutory jurisdictional threshold where plaintiff offered no rebutting evidence. The plaintiff's allegations that the former president's new company aided and abetted his breach of fiduciary duties satisfied the jurisdictional clause in Tex. Gov't Code Section 25A.004(b)(5). The petition's repeated allegations regarding misappropriation of sensitive business information invoked Section 25A.004(d)(4)'s jurisdictional clause, requiring that the suit relate to intellectual-property ownership or use, despite no standalone trade-secret misappropriation claim.", "mediaId": "1462072", "op_no": 6, "date_iso": "2026-02-03", "mem_op": false, "case": "Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas", "plaintiff": "Alamo Title Company", "defendant": "WFG National Title Company of Texas", "subject_matter": "Title insurance / employee defection", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Jurisdictional balance-shifting framework; §25A.004(b)(5) (aiding/abetting BoFD) and §25A.004(d)(4) (IP-related) bases", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b)); Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Fiduciary / IP / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462072/25-bc04b-0017-alamo-title-company-v-wfg-national-title-company-2026-tex-bus-6.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": true, "page_count": 16, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty (aiding/abetting); Trade secret / IP-misappropriation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": "Y", "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": "Y", "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Applying the court's jurisdictional balance-shifting framework, the court holds that the defendant's removal notice, which pleaded more than five million dollars in controversy, satisfied the statutory jurisdictional threshold where plaintiff offered no rebutting evidence. The plaintiff's allegations that the former president's new company aided and abetted his breach of fiduciary duties satisfied the jurisdictional clause in Tex. Gov't Code Section 25A.004(b)(5). The petition's repeated allegations regarding misappropriation of sensitive business information invoked Section 25A.004(d)(4)'s jurisdictional clause, requiring that the suit relate to intellectual-property ownership or use, despite no standalone trade-secret misappropriation claim.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trade Secret Tutsa, Knowing Participation Aiding Abetting", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1462072", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462072/25-bc04b-0017-alamo-title-company-v-wfg-national-title-company-2026-tex-bus-6.pdf", "source_line_range": "L281-L285", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; trade-regulation", "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "Amount in controversy and IP/trade-regulation jurisdiction satisfied", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; trade-regulation" ], "pdf_fetch_failure_reason": "image-only scan, OCR required", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 5", "year": 2026, "num": 5, "date": "February 2, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Responsible third-party (Ch. 33)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion 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,” as used therein.", "mediaId": "1462085", "op_no": 5, "date_iso": "2026-02-02", "mem_op": false, "case": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank", "plaintiff": "Preston Hollow Capital", "defendant": "Truist Bank", "subject_matter": "Bond financing / banking", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 33 \"responsible third party\" and meaning of \"harm for which recovery sought\"", "jurisdictional_issue": "Responsible third-party (Ch. 33)", "primary_claim_family": "Apportionment / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Responsible-third-party motion (Chapter 33)", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462085/25-bc01b-0030-preston-hollow-capital-v-truist-bank-2026-tex-bus-5.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": true, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Responsible-third-party designation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion 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,” as used therein.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Responsible third-party (Ch. 33)" ], "media_id": "1462085", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462085/25-bc01b-0030-preston-hollow-capital-v-truist-bank-2026-tex-bus-5.pdf", "source_line_range": "L286-L290", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Ruling on definitions", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Responsible third party (CPRC §33)", "grok_outcome": "Ruling on definitions", "grok_key_factors": "\"Harm for which recovery is sought\"", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Responsible third party (CPRC §33)" ], "pdf_fetch_failure_reason": "URL 404 confirmed; file pulled from txcourts.gov listings (separate opinion published at 2025 Tex. Bus. 55)", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 4", "year": 2026, "num": 4, "date": "February 2, 2026", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Crain v. Northern", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Specific Performance, Buy Sell Drag Along", "claims": [ "specific_performance", "buy_sell_drag_along" ], "summary": "This Opinion addresses the enforcement of a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause and its specific performance remedy after the Offeror tendered the requisite buy/sell notice and the Offeree failed to respond to the notice and claimed the Offeror violated the underlying Company Agreement. The Court ultimately finds the Offeror is entitled to specific performance from the Offeree under the Buy-Sell Option clause. The Court awards the Offeror attorneys’ fees.", "mediaId": "1462061", "op_no": 4, "date_iso": "2026-02-02", "mem_op": false, "case": "Crain v. Northern", "plaintiff": "Crain", "defendant": "Northern", "subject_matter": "LLC / buy-sell option", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Mandatory Buy-Sell Option enforced; specific performance + attorneys' fees awarded", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Contract", "procedural_posture": "Final judgment / specific performance", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "OPINION AND ORDER FILED IN BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK ENTERED 2/2/2026", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462061/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2026-tex-bus-4.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 20, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": 25772.5, "fees_basis": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §38.001", "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 33, "top_3_cases_cited": "TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a. ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann; Stanfield v. Neubaum; Cty. of Hous. v. Clear Creek Basin Auth", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": "October 23, 2025", "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": "N", "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Specific performance (buy-sell option)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": "Y", "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": "Y", "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This Opinion addresses the enforcement of a mandatory Buy-Sell Option clause and its specific performance remedy after the Offeror tendered the requisite buy/sell notice and the Offeree failed to respond to the notice and claimed the Offeror violated the underlying Company Agreement. The Court ultimately finds the Offeror is entitled to specific performance from the Offeree under the Buy-Sell Option clause. The Court awards the Offeror attorneys’ fees.", "claim_summary": "Specific Performance, Buy Sell Drag Along", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462061", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462061/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2026-tex-bus-4.pdf", "source_line_range": "L291-L294", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Specific performance granted + attorney's fees", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Buy-sell option / specific performance", "grok_outcome": "Specific performance granted + attorney's fees", "grok_key_factors": "Buy-sell option enforceable", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Buy-sell option / specific performance" ], "disposition_code_archived": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 3", "year": 2026, "num": 3, "date": "January 26, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "ruling": "Order issued", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract, Breach Fiduciary Duty, Fraud Misrepresentation, Declaratory Judgment, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute, Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit, Conversion, Accounting Books Records", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract", "breach_fiduciary_duty", "fraud_misrepresentation", "declaratory_judgment", "joint_venture_partnership_dispute", "unjust_enrichment_quantum_meruit", "conversion", "accounting_books_records" ], "summary": "Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants’ claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set.", "mediaId": "1462023", "op_no": 3, "date_iso": "2026-01-26", "mem_op": true, "case": "Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction", "plaintiff": "Quintero", "defendant": "Urban Infraconstruction", "subject_matter": "Construction / partnership dispute", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Multi-claim disposition: declaratory and accounting claims dismissed; breach of contract, BoFD, fraud, and quantum meruit proceed to jury trial", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Mixed Commercial / Fiduciary", "procedural_posture": "Rule 166(g) early legal issues", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462023/25-bc01a-0022-qunitero-v-urban-infraconstruction-2026-tex-bus-3.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 25, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 17, "top_3_cases_cited": "JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C; Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc; JPMorgan Chase Bank, 546 S.W.3d at 653. City of Keller v. Wilson", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Declaratory judgment; Breach of contract; Breach of fiduciary duty; Fraud; Accounting / inspection of books; Conversion; Unjust enrichment; Quantum meruit", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": "Y", "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": "Y", "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": "Y", "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": "Y", "Conversion": "Y", "Accounting / books and records": "Y", "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Ruling after court-ordered Rule 166(g) briefing. Ruling that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief and, with respect to one defendant, that Plaintiffs take nothing by their claims for accounting and inspection of books and records, breach of contract or an alleged partnership agreement, or for fraud and unjust enrichment. Ruling that Defendants take nothing by their claims for declaratory relief. Ruling that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud relating to one plaintiff and alternative claim for quantum meruit, and Defendants’ claim for conversion, remain pending and will proceed to jury trial as set.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract, Breach Fiduciary Duty, Fraud Misrepresentation, Declaratory Judgment, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute, Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit, Conversion, Accounting Books Records", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462023", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462023/25-bc01a-0022-qunitero-v-urban-infraconstruction-2026-tex-bus-3.pdf", "source_line_range": "L295-L301", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial take-nothing judgment; some claims proceed to trial", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Declaratory relief, accounting, fraud, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion", "grok_outcome": "Partial take-nothing judgment; some claims proceed to trial", "grok_key_factors": "Rule 166(g) early legal-issue ruling", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Declaratory relief, accounting, fraud, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 2", "year": 2026, "num": 2, "date": "January 8, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises", "industry": "Telecom", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Defamation Disparagement", "claims": [ "defamation_disparagement" ], "summary": "Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory.", "mediaId": "1461915", "op_no": 2, "date_iso": "2026-01-08", "mem_op": true, "case": "Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises", "plaintiff": "Fiberwave", "defendant": "AT&T Enterprises", "subject_matter": "Telecom / defamation", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Statements not objectively verifiable — not defamatory as matter of law", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Business Torts", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment (traditional and no-evidence)", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461915/25-bc01a-0013-fiberwave-v-att-enterprises-2026-tex-bus-2.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 11, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 21, "top_3_cases_cited": "KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw; State v. Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars; Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Defamation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": "Y", "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory.", "claim_summary": "Defamation Disparagement", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461915", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461915/25-bc01a-0013-fiberwave-v-att-enterprises-2026-tex-bus-2.pdf", "source_line_range": "L302-L306", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Defamation", "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment granted", "grok_key_factors": "Statements not objectively verifiable", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Defamation" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2026 Tex. Bus. 1", "year": 2026, "num": 1, "date": "January 6, 2026", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": false, "caption": "Sun Metals Group v. Yu", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand; Interlocutory appeal; Motion for reconsideration", "ruling": "Denied (motion to remand denied → TBC retains)", "jurIssues": [ "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order.", "mediaId": "1461884", "op_no": 1, "date_iso": "2026-01-06", "mem_op": false, "case": "Sun Metals Group v. Yu", "plaintiff": "Sun Metals Group", "defendant": "Yu", "subject_matter": "Removal timeliness", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Reconsideration of prior remand denied; permissive interlocutory appeal denied", "jurisdictional_issue": "Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion for reconsideration; Permissive interlocutory appeal", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461884/25-bc01a-0050-sun-metals-group-v-yu-2026-tex-bus-1.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 7, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Reconsideration", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": 5000000.0, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 355", "cases_cited_count": 6, "top_3_cases_cited": "Tema Oil & Gas Co. v. ETC Field Servs; Ten 31 v. Tarbox; Yadav v. Agrawal", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1461884", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461884/25-bc01a-0050-sun-metals-group-v-yu-2026-tex-bus-1.pdf", "source_line_range": "L307-L311", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Reconsideration of remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Reconsideration of remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "Untimely removal", "claims_adjudicated": [], "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [ "Interlocutory appeal", "Motion for reconsideration" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 55", "year": 2025, "num": 55, "date": "December 19, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trust Fiduciary", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty", "trust_fiduciary" ], "summary": "This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same financing; and (iii) whether a trustee owes continuing fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries once the trustee resigns and is replaced by a substitute trustee. The court concludes that (i) the punitive damages waiver is enforceable here because the Trust Code does not reflect a legislative intent to bar such waivers; (ii) the subject waiver applies to both contracts because they are integral parts of the same financing arrangement; and (iii) a terminated and replaced trustee must protect a former beneficiary’s confidential information that the trustee obtained during the trust relationship.", "mediaId": "1461813", "op_no": 55, "date_iso": "2025-12-19", "mem_op": false, "case": "Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank", "plaintiff": "Preston Hollow Capital", "defendant": "Truist Bank", "subject_matter": "Bond financing / trustee fiduciary duties", "key_doctrinal_issue": "(i) Property Code does not bar trustee punitive-damages waiver; (ii) waiver applies across related contracts in same financing; (iii) terminated trustee retains confidentiality duty", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Trust / Fiduciary", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on punitive damages waiver and trustee duties", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461813/25-bc01b-0030-preston-hollow-capital-v-truist-bank-2025-tex-bus-55.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 29, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": "exemplary", "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 28, "top_3_cases_cited": "Senior Care Living, VI, LLC v. Preston Hollow Capital, LLC; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC; Walden v. Affiliated Comput. Servs., Inc", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Breach of fiduciary duty (trustee)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": "Y", "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same financing; and (iii) whether a trustee owes continuing fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries once the trustee resigns and is replaced by a substitute trustee. The court concludes that (i) the punitive damages waiver is enforceable here because the Trust Code does not reflect a legislative intent to bar such waivers; (ii) the subject waiver applies to both contracts because they are integral parts of the same financing arrangement; and (iii) a terminated and replaced trustee must protect a former beneficiary’s confidential information that the trustee obtained during the trust relationship.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Trust Fiduciary", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461813", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461813/25-bc01b-0030-preston-hollow-capital-v-truist-bank-2025-tex-bus-55.pdf", "source_line_range": "L312-L316", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on Trust Code and fiduciary duties", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Punitive-damages waiver; trustee duties post-resignation", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on Trust Code and fiduciary duties", "grok_key_factors": "Waiver enforceable; continuing duty to protect confidential information", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Punitive-damages waiver; trustee duties post-resignation" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 54", "year": 2025, "num": 54, "date": "December 22, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting Defendant's motion to strike untimely filed summary-judgment evidence. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. One plaintiff is not entitled to damages as a matter of law, is not entitled to lost revenue or production as a matter of law, has produced evidence of redesign costs and additional expenses incurred as a result of Defendant's breach, and the record contains evidence of that plaintiff's expectancy damages. While Plaintiffs do not allege a specific theory/category of reliance damages in their petition, the Court nonetheless addresses Defendant’s argument and holds that the plaintiff has not produced evidence of reliance damages.", "mediaId": "1461812", "op_no": 54, "date_iso": "2025-12-22", "mem_op": true, "case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "plaintiff": "Slant Operating", "defendant": "Octane Energy Operating", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / damages", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Striking untimely SJ evidence; expectancy damages supported; reliance damages not pled or evidenced", "jurisdictional_issue": "Venue / venue-selection clause", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Damages", "procedural_posture": "Motion to strike evidence; Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": "GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461812/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-54.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 15, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 22, "top_3_cases_cited": "Benchmark Bank v. Crowder; Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co; Pipkin v. Kroger Tex., L.P", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (expectancy and reliance damages)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting Defendant's motion to strike untimely filed summary-judgment evidence. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. One plaintiff is not entitled to damages as a matter of law, is not entitled to lost revenue or production as a matter of law, has produced evidence of redesign costs and additional expenses incurred as a result of Defendant's breach, and the record contains evidence of that plaintiff's expectancy damages. While Plaintiffs do not allege a specific theory/category of reliance damages in their petition, the Court nonetheless addresses Defendant’s argument and holds that the plaintiff has not produced evidence of reliance damages.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "media_id": "1461812", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461812/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-54.pdf", "source_line_range": "L317-L322", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Lost-revenue / production damages barred", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 53", "year": 2025, "num": 53, "date": "December 22, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract" ], "summary": "This opinion addresses competing motions for summary judgment regarding liability for Defendant’s alleged breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement. More specifically, the Court considers whether there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the definiteness of the agreement’s essential terms and the parties’ mutual assent to those terms. The Court concludes no such fact issues exist to preclude summary judgment for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and denies Defendant’s motion.", "mediaId": "1461811", "op_no": 53, "date_iso": "2025-12-22", "mem_op": false, "case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "plaintiff": "Slant Operating", "defendant": "Octane Energy Operating", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / reciprocal waiver agreement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Essential terms definite; mutual assent established; no fact issues precluding SJ for plaintiff", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract", "procedural_posture": "Cross-motions for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461811/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-53.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 28, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 40, "top_3_cases_cited": "Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth; TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a. ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann; MMP, Ltd. v. Jones", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (reciprocal waiver agreement)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses competing motions for summary judgment regarding liability for Defendant’s alleged breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement. More specifically, the Court considers whether there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the definiteness of the agreement’s essential terms and the parties’ mutual assent to those terms. The Court concludes no such fact issues exist to preclude summary judgment for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and denies Defendant’s motion.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461811", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461811/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-53.pdf", "source_line_range": "L323-L327", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Reciprocal waiver agreement", "grok_outcome": "Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted", "grok_key_factors": "Definiteness and mutual assent established", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Reciprocal waiver agreement" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 52", "year": 2025, "num": 52, "date": "December 22, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses whether a leaseholder is a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators, and whether the Court’s jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit is affected by the Court’s disposition of the leaseholder’s third-party-beneficiary claim. The Court concludes (1) the leaseholder is not a third-party beneficiary to the reciprocal waiver agreement, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit after the leaseholder’s claims are dismissed.", "mediaId": "1461810", "op_no": 52, "date_iso": "2025-12-22", "mem_op": false, "case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "plaintiff": "Slant Operating", "defendant": "Octane Energy Operating", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / third-party beneficiary", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Leaseholder not a third-party beneficiary; court retains jurisdiction over remaining claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss third-party-beneficiary claim", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED to extent confirms jurisdiction; otherwise DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461810/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-52.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 17, "paragraph_count": 42, "motion_type": "Plea to the Jurisdiction", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 29, "top_3_cases_cited": "Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd; Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato; Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Third-party beneficiary; Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses whether a leaseholder is a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators, and whether the Court’s jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit is affected by the Court’s disposition of the leaseholder’s third-party-beneficiary claim. The Court concludes (1) the leaseholder is not a third-party beneficiary to the reciprocal waiver agreement, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction and authority over the entire lawsuit after the leaseholder’s claims are dismissed.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461810", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461810/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-25-tex-bus-52.pdf", "source_line_range": "L328-L332", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on third-party beneficiary status", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Third-party beneficiary", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on third-party beneficiary status", "grok_key_factors": "Leaseholder not third-party beneficiary", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Third-party beneficiary" ], "disposition_code_archived": "DENIED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 51", "year": 2025, "num": 51, "date": "December 18, 2025", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": true, "caption": "Ornelas v. Herrera", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Substantive ruling", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty" ], "summary": "Ruling that recent resolutions with some defendants do not affect the Court’s jurisdiction over remaining claims and declining to rule at this stage whether the remaining defendant owes fiduciary duties to certain plaintiffs.", "mediaId": "1461798", "op_no": 51, "date_iso": "2025-12-18", "mem_op": true, "case": "Ornelas v. Herrera", "plaintiff": "Ornelas", "defendant": "Herrera", "subject_matter": "Inter-partner litigation", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Partial settlements with some defendants do not divest court of jurisdiction over remaining claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Fiduciary / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Pretrial ruling on jurisdiction and fiduciary duties", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": "ENTERED 12/18/2025 Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 Joint Advisory on Early Legal Issues.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461798/25-bc04b-0001-ornelas-v-herrera-2025-tex-bus-51.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 6, "paragraph_count": 42, "motion_type": "Rule 166(g) Early Legal Issue", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 9, "top_3_cases_cited": "Bland ISD v. Blue; ET Gathering Processing LLC v. Tellurian Prod. LLC; Reed v. Rook TX, LP", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Ruling that recent resolutions with some defendants do not affect the Court’s jurisdiction over remaining claims and declining to rule at this stage whether the remaining defendant owes fiduciary duties to certain plaintiffs.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461798", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461798/25-bc04b-0001-ornelas-v-herrera-2025-tex-bus-51.pdf", "source_line_range": "L333-L337", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial ruling on fiduciary duties", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial ruling on fiduciary duties", "grok_key_factors": "Resolutions with other defendants do not affect jurisdiction", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty" ], "disposition_code_archived": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 50", "year": 2025, "num": 50, "date": "December 18, 2025", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": true, "caption": "Hensarling v. Carmichael", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Rule 91a dismissal", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Winding Up Dissolution", "claims": [ "winding_up_dissolution" ], "summary": "Denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 91a. The Court first finds that the case falls within the Court’s jurisdictional scope and that the plaintiff’s non-suit was not filed in time to prevent the court’s ruling on the Rule 91a motion. It next finds that the plaintiff’s application to wind up a partnership under section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations to support her claims at this early stage of the case. The Court declined to award fees.", "mediaId": "1461797", "op_no": 50, "date_iso": "2025-12-18", "mem_op": true, "case": "Hensarling v. Carmichael", "plaintiff": "Hensarling", "defendant": "Carmichael", "subject_matter": "Partnership dissolution / wind-up", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Wind-up petition under TBOC §11.314 within court's scope; non-suit untimely; sufficient factual allegations", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Winding Up", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss (Rule 91a)", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461797/25-bc04b-0014-hensarling-v-carmichael-2025-tex-bus-50.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 9, "paragraph_count": 12, "motion_type": "Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": 5000000.0, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 91", "cases_cited_count": 10, "top_3_cases_cited": "Bland ISD v. Blue; ET Gathering Processing LLC v. Tellurian Prod. LLC; Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Partnership wind-up (TBOC §11.314)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": "Y", "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 91a. The Court first finds that the case falls within the Court’s jurisdictional scope and that the plaintiff’s non-suit was not filed in time to prevent the court’s ruling on the Rule 91a motion. It next finds that the plaintiff’s application to wind up a partnership under section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations to support her claims at this early stage of the case. The Court declined to award fees.", "claim_summary": "Winding Up Dissolution", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461797", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461797/25-bc04b-0014-hensarling-v-carmichael-2025-tex-bus-50.pdf", "source_line_range": "L338-L341", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to dismiss denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Partnership wind-up (§11.314)", "grok_outcome": "Motion to dismiss denied", "grok_key_factors": "Adequate pleading; no fees awarded", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Partnership wind-up (§11.314)" ], "posture_primary": "Rule 91a dismissal", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 49", "year": 2025, "num": 49, "date": "December 17, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Crain v. Northern", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Legal Malpractice", "claims": [ "legal_malpractice" ], "summary": "Correction in paragraph 22 posted on 2/11/26. This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, and multiple business entities. The Court declines to consider whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and business entities but does address whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from the alleged relationship. The Court concludes the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims are improperly before it and, accordingly, dismisses all claims against the attorney-Defendant without prejudice.", "mediaId": "1462111", "op_no": 49, "date_iso": "2025-12-17", "mem_op": false, "case": "Crain v. Northern", "plaintiff": "Crain", "defendant": "Northern", "subject_matter": "Attorney-client malpractice", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Legal-malpractice claims fall outside TBC's subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissed without prejudice", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Professional Liability / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Subject-matter jurisdiction", "result": "JURISDICTION_DENIED", "disposition_code": "DISMISSED", "disposition_text": "Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462111/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2025-tex-bus-49-corrected.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 13, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 91", "cases_cited_count": 21, "top_3_cases_cited": "TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1, 91a.2. City of Dallas v. Sanchez; Wooley v. Schaffer; Am. Motorists Ins. v. Fodge", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Legal malpractice; Fractured malpractice-based claims", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": "Y", "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Correction in paragraph 22 posted on 2/11/26. This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, and multiple business entities. The Court declines to consider whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and business entities but does address whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from the alleged relationship. The Court concludes the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims are improperly before it and, accordingly, dismisses all claims against the attorney-Defendant without prejudice.", "claim_summary": "Legal Malpractice", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1462111", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462111/25-bc08a-0014-crain-v-northern-2025-tex-bus-49-corrected.pdf", "source_line_range": "L342-L347", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Dismissed without prejudice", "canonical_disposition_code": "DISMISSED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": true, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Legal malpractice / fractured malpractice", "grok_outcome": "Dismissed without prejudice", "grok_key_factors": "Claims improperly before Business Court", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Derivative action", "Legal malpractice / fractured malpractice" ], "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 48", "year": 2025, "num": 48, "date": "December 5, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Sun Metals Group v. Yu", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand; Sanctions motion", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting Plaintiff's motion to remand for untimeliness because the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional requirement were facially pleaded more than thirty days before Defendants removed the case to Business Court. Remanding Defendants' motion for sanctions to district court.", "mediaId": "1461739", "op_no": 48, "date_iso": "2025-12-05", "mem_op": true, "case": "Sun Metals Group v. Yu", "plaintiff": "Sun Metals Group", "defendant": "Yu", "subject_matter": "Removal timeliness", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Damages satisfying jurisdictional requirement were pled >30 days before removal; remand granted", "jurisdictional_issue": "Removal-deadline (30-day)", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "ENTERED 12/5/2025 Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 1 Plaintiff Sun Metals Group, LLC's Motion to Remand.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461739/25-bc01a-0050-sun-metals-group-v-yu-2025-tex-bus-48.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 6, "paragraph_count": 92, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 355", "cases_cited_count": 2, "top_3_cases_cited": "Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox; Chaudhry v. Stillwater Oz Dev. Fund", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting Plaintiff's motion to remand for untimeliness because the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional requirement were facially pleaded more than thirty days before Defendants removed the case to Business Court. Remanding Defendants' motion for sanctions to district court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "media_id": "1461739", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461739/25-bc01a-0050-sun-metals-group-v-yu-2025-tex-bus-48.pdf", "source_line_range": "L348-L353", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Damages known >30 days before removal", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_archived": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [ "Sanctions motion" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 47", "year": 2025, "num": 47, "date": "December 5, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "OWL Assetco I v. EOG Resources", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remand denied", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "HB 40 threshold reduction", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "The Court addresses whether the Texas Legislature’s amount-in-controversy threshold reduction gives the Texas Business Court jurisdiction to hear a previously remanded action and whether the subsequent removal of the action was proper and timely. The Court examines the statutory construction of House Bill 40 and determines removal was both proper and timely under Texas Government Code 25A.006(f).", "mediaId": "1461720", "op_no": 47, "date_iso": "2025-12-05", "mem_op": false, "case": "OWL Assetco I v. EOG Resources", "plaintiff": "OWL Assetco I", "defendant": "EOG Resources", "subject_matter": "Removal / HB 40 amount-in-controversy reduction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "HB 40 lowering threshold to $5M; jurisdiction over previously-remanded action confirmed", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; HB 40 threshold reduction; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal under amended threshold (HB 40)", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461720/25-bc08a-0052-owl-assetco-i-v-eog-resources-2025-tex-bus-47.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 11, "paragraph_count": 18, "motion_type": "Motion to Remand", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": 5000000.0, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 355", "cases_cited_count": 21, "top_3_cases_cited": "Notice. June 9, 2025 First Remand Motion. OWL AssetCo 1, LLC v. EOG Res., Inc; Tellez v. City of Socorro; Diocese of Galveston-Hous. v. Stone", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "The Court addresses whether the Texas Legislature’s amount-in-controversy threshold reduction gives the Texas Business Court jurisdiction to hear a previously remanded action and whether the subsequent removal of the action was proper and timely. The Court examines the statutory construction of House Bill 40 and determines removal was both proper and timely under Texas Government Code 25A.006(f).", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "HB 40 threshold reduction", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1461720", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461720/25-bc08a-0052-owl-assetco-i-v-eog-resources-2025-tex-bus-47.pdf", "source_line_range": "L354-L358", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "Removal proper and timely under HB 40", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "audit_status": "PATCHED_2026-05-23_division_corrected_from_11th_to_8th_via_URL_slug_25-bc08a + Bullard J. confirmation", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 46", "year": 2025, "num": 46, "date": "November 14, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "CRS Mechanical v. Norfolk Cold Storage", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Declaratory Judgment", "claims": [ "declaratory_judgment" ], "summary": "Granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendants' counterclaims for declaratory relief because each requested declaration either duplicates issues already joined by the pleadings or seeks relief beyond this Court’s jurisdiction.", "mediaId": "1461582", "op_no": 46, "date_iso": "2025-11-14", "mem_op": true, "case": "CRS Mechanical v. Norfolk Cold Storage", "plaintiff": "CRS Mechanical", "defendant": "Norfolk Cold Storage", "subject_matter": "Construction / declaratory relief", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Counterclaim declarations duplicate existing pleadings or exceed jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Declaratory / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "GRANTED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461582/25-bc08b-0001-crs-mechanical-v-norfolk-cold-storage-2025-tex-bus-46.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 10, "paragraph_count": 7, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": "Plaintiff", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 17, "top_3_cases_cited": "ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann; Tello v. Bank One, N.A; Taylor v. GWR Operating Co", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Declaratory judgment", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": "Y", "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendants' counterclaims for declaratory relief because each requested declaration either duplicates issues already joined by the pleadings or seeks relief beyond this Court’s jurisdiction.", "claim_summary": "Declaratory Judgment", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461582", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461582/25-bc08b-0001-crs-mechanical-v-norfolk-cold-storage-2025-tex-bus-46.pdf", "source_line_range": "L359-L363", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment against counterclaims granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Declaratory relief", "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment against counterclaims granted", "grok_key_factors": "Declarations duplicate or beyond jurisdiction", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Declaratory relief" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 45", "year": 2025, "num": 45, "date": "November 8, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": true, "caption": "City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Specific Performance", "claims": [ "specific_performance" ], "summary": "Granting Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff TMC's Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Termination against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant City Choice. Although City Choice’s termination notice was clear and unequivocal; its tender of its termination notice was not the exercise or acceptance of an option, and is therefore, not subject to the “strict compliance” standard applicable to the exercise or acceptance of options; and it substantially complied with notice provisions in exercising its right to terminate, it estopped from obtaining specific performance of the contract it purported to terminate. Denying TMC's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Third Party Defendant City Select Title for Release of the Independent Consideration. TMC does not seek a simple declaration from this Court that TMC is entitled to receipt of the Independent Consideration at the execution of the final judgment in this case. Instead, TMC seeks the immediate (i.e., pre-judgment) release of the Independent Consideration. But it must instead comply with the statutory requirements for a writ of attachment.", "mediaId": "1461580", "op_no": 45, "date_iso": "2025-11-08", "mem_op": true, "case": "City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.", "plaintiff": "City Choice Group", "defendant": "TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.", "subject_matter": "Real estate / contract termination", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Termination notice substantially complied; estopped from seeking specific performance; pre-judgment independent-consideration release requires writ of attachment", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Remedies", "procedural_posture": "Motion for partial summary judgment (cross-motions)", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": "GRANTED, Second Motion DENIED.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461580/24-bc11a-0002-city-choice-group-v-tmc-grand-blvd-land-co-2025-tex-bus-45.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 16, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166; Tex. R. Civ. P. 360; Tex. R. Civ. P. 592", "cases_cited_count": 16, "top_3_cases_cited": "Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Xerox State & Local Sols., Inc; Montgomery v. Kennedy", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Specific performance; Declaratory judgment", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": "Y", "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff TMC's Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Termination against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant City Choice. Although City Choice’s termination notice was clear and unequivocal; its tender of its termination notice was not the exercise or acceptance of an option, and is therefore, not subject to the “strict compliance” standard applicable to the exercise or acceptance of options; and it substantially complied with notice provisions in exercising its right to terminate, it estopped from obtaining specific performance of the contract it purported to terminate. Denying TMC's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Third Party Defendant City Select Title for Release of the Independent Consideration. TMC does not seek a simple declaration from this Court that TMC is entitled to receipt of the Independent Consideration at the execution of the final judgment in this case. Instead, TMC seeks the immediate (i.e., pre-judgment) release of the Independent Consideration. But it must instead comply with the statutory requirements for a writ of attachment.", "claim_summary": "Specific Performance", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461580", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461580/24-bc11a-0002-city-choice-group-v-tmc-grand-blvd-land-co-2025-tex-bus-45.pdf", "source_line_range": "L364-L370", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Termination notice valid but estoppel bars specific performance", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_archived": "DENIED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 44", "year": 2025, "num": 44, "date": "November 5, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "Lensabl v. RBH SBE One", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Rule 91a dismissal", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract, Fraud Misrepresentation, Veil Piercing Alter Ego", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract", "fraud_misrepresentation", "veil_piercing_alter_ego" ], "summary": "Granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a because the pleadings fail to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract or for veil piercing, and the fraud claim is adequately pleaded.", "mediaId": "1461511", "op_no": 44, "date_iso": "2025-11-05", "mem_op": true, "case": "Lensabl v. RBH SBE One", "plaintiff": "Lensabl", "defendant": "RBH SBE One", "subject_matter": "Eyewear / corporate veil piercing", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Strict statutory veil-piercing standard under TBOC §21.223; breach-of-contract and veil-piercing claims dismissed; fraud claim adequately pleaded", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Fraud", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss (Rule 91a)", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": "dismissed with prejudice.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461511/25-bc08b-0013-lensabl-v-rbh-spe-one-2025-tex-bus-44.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 16, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 45; Tex. R. Civ. P. 91", "cases_cited_count": 17, "top_3_cases_cited": "TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a. Reynolds v. Quantlab Trading Partners US, LP; Reaves v. City of Corpus Christi; Fiamma Statler, LP v. Challis", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Fraud; Veil piercing", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": "Y", "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": "Y", "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a because the pleadings fail to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract or for veil piercing, and the fraud claim is adequately pleaded.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract, Fraud Misrepresentation, Veil Piercing Alter Ego", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461511", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461511/25-bc08b-0013-lensabl-v-rbh-spe-one-2025-tex-bus-44.pdf", "source_line_range": "L371-L375", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial motion to dismiss granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Veil piercing; fraud", "grok_outcome": "Partial motion to dismiss granted", "grok_key_factors": "Breach and veil-piercing claims fail; fraud survives", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Veil piercing; fraud" ], "disposition_code_archived": "DISMISSED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Rule 91a dismissal", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 43", "year": 2025, "num": 43, "date": "November 3, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Sweeten", "memOp": false, "caption": "Cadence McShane Construction Company v. Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an “action arising out of a qualified transaction” under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither “conjectural, hypothetical or remote” and therefore ripe.", "mediaId": "1461524", "op_no": 43, "date_iso": "2025-11-03", "mem_op": false, "case": "Cadence McShane Construction Company v. Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek", "plaintiff": "Cadence McShane Construction", "defendant": "Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek", "subject_matter": "Construction subcontractor claims", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Third-party claims meet \"action arising out of a qualified transaction\" under §25A.004(d)(1); not conjectural", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "primary_claim_family": "Construction / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": "OPINION AND ORDER FILED IN BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK ENTERED 11/3/2025", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461524/25-bc03b-0002-cadence-mcshane-construction-co-v-ryan-bb-blockhouse-creek-2025-tex-bus-43.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 19, "paragraph_count": 41, "motion_type": "Plea to the Jurisdiction", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 21, "top_3_cases_cited": "Ryan contends CMC cannot aggregate claims. French v. Moore; Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones; Texas Dep't. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda 133 S.W.3d 217", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (construction subcontracts)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an “action arising out of a qualified transaction” under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither “conjectural, hypothetical or remote” and therefore ripe.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "media_id": "1461524", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461524/25-bc03b-0002-cadence-mcshane-construction-co-v-ryan-bb-blockhouse-creek-2025-tex-bus-43.pdf", "source_line_range": "L376-L380", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Third-party claims satisfy qualified-transaction threshold", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_archived": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code_source": "RECONCILED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 42", "year": 2025, "num": 42, "date": "October 29, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises", "industry": "Telecom", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Tortious Interference, Defamation Disparagement", "claims": [ "tortious_interference", "defamation_disparagement" ], "summary": "Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff’s tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties’ 2022 agreement.", "mediaId": "1461480", "op_no": 42, "date_iso": "2025-10-29", "mem_op": true, "case": "Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises", "plaintiff": "Fiberwave", "defendant": "AT&T Enterprises", "subject_matter": "Telecom / contract limitation-of-liability", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Limitation-of-liability provision in 2022 agreement applied selectively to claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Business Torts / Contract", "procedural_posture": "Motion for partial summary judgment", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": "GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461480/25-bc01a-0013-fiberwave-v-att-enterprises-2025-tex-bus-42.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 12, "paragraph_count": 29, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": "Defendant", "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 56", "cases_cited_count": 17, "top_3_cases_cited": "Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo; Yowell v. Granite Operating Co; Utica Nat'l Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Am. Indem. Co", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Tortious interference with contract; Defamation; Business disparagement", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": "Y", "Defamation / disparagement": "Y", "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff’s tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties’ 2022 agreement.", "claim_summary": "Tortious Interference, Defamation Disparagement", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461480", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461480/25-bc01a-0013-fiberwave-v-att-enterprises-2025-tex-bus-42.pdf", "source_line_range": "L381-L385", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Tortious interference, defamation, business disparagement", "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Limitation-of-liability provision partially bars claims", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Tortious interference, defamation, business disparagement" ], "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 41", "year": 2025, "num": 41, "date": "October 29, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "JT Capital v. Blom Capital", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident’s special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice.", "mediaId": "1461457", "op_no": 41, "date_iso": "2025-10-29", "mem_op": true, "case": "JT Capital v. Blom Capital", "plaintiff": "JT Capital", "defendant": "Blom Capital", "subject_matter": "Investment / personal jurisdiction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No tortious acts in Texas; insufficient Texas contacts for personal jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": "granted Talati's special appearances on October 16, 2025.", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461457/25-bc01b-0019-jt-capital-v-blom-capital-2025-tex-bus-41.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 38, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Special Appearance", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 120", "cases_cited_count": 31, "top_3_cases_cited": "JT Capital LLC, Plaintiff v. BLOM CAPITAL LLC; Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg; LG Chem. Am., Inc. v. Morgan", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident’s special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1461457", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461457/25-bc01b-0019-jt-capital-v-blom-capital-2025-tex-bus-41.pdf", "source_line_range": "L386-L389", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "grok_key_factors": "No minimum contacts", "claims_adjudicated": [], "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 40", "year": 2025, "num": 40, "date": "October 28, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": true, "caption": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties’ contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff’s actual damages.", "mediaId": "1461456", "op_no": 40, "date_iso": "2025-10-28", "mem_op": true, "case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "plaintiff": "Marathon Oil", "defendant": "Mercuria Energy America", "subject_matter": "Energy / liquidated damages", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Fact issues preclude unenforceable-penalty determination; defendant's cost-basis theory not the correct measure of damages", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Damages", "procedural_posture": "Rule 166(g) early legal issues", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED IN BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK ENTERED 10/28/2025", "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461456/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-40.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 24, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": "compensatory", "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": "Tex. R. Civ. P. 166", "cases_cited_count": 27, "top_3_cases_cited": "Ltd. v. Belcher Oil Co; Skeels v. Suder; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Liquidated damages", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties’ contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff’s actual damages.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461456", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461456/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-40.pdf", "source_line_range": "L390-L394", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Fact issues on penalty clause", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Liquidated damages / penalty", "grok_outcome": "Fact issues on penalty clause", "grok_key_factors": "Cost-basis theory not correct measure of damages", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Liquidated damages / penalty" ], "posture_primary": "Rule 166(g) early ruling", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 39", "year": 2025, "num": 39, "date": "October 14, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Force Majeure", "claims": [ "force_majeure" ], "summary": "In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties’ contract did not obligate the seller to take either action as a prerequisite or alternative to declaring force majeure or as a contractually required “reasonable effort.”", "mediaId": "1461396", "op_no": 39, "date_iso": "2025-10-14", "mem_op": false, "case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "plaintiff": "Marathon Oil", "defendant": "Mercuria Energy America", "subject_matter": "Natural gas / Winter Storm Uri", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Seller not obligated to purchase spot-market gas or buy back delivery obligation as prerequisite to declaring force majeure or as \"reasonable effort\"", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Energy", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on force-majeure defense", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461396/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-39.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": false, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": 25, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": "Motion for Summary Judgment", "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": 19, "top_3_cases_cited": "NAESB. Mieco, L.L.C. v. Pioneer Nat. Res. USA, Inc; Luminant Energy Co. v. Koch Energy Servs., LLC; URI, Inc. v. Kleberg Cnty", "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Force majeure", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": "Y", "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties’ contract did not obligate the seller to take either action as a prerequisite or alternative to declaring force majeure or as a contractually required “reasonable effort.”", "claim_summary": "Force Majeure", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461396", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461396/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-39.pdf", "source_line_range": "L395-L398", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on force majeure", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Force majeure", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on force majeure", "grok_key_factors": "No obligation to purchase on spot market or buy back", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Force majeure" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 38", "year": 2025, "num": 38, "date": "October 7, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": true, "caption": "Arnold v. Blue Ridge Landfill", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment arguing that a contract does not require it to pay royalty payments on \"revenues actually received by [the defendant] for final disposal of solid waste in the sanitary landfill operated on the Property,\" where the disposal is in a part of the landfill that is not on the Property.", "mediaId": "1461389", "op_no": 38, "date_iso": "2025-10-07", "mem_op": true, "case": "Arnold v. Blue Ridge Landfill", "plaintiff": "Arnold", "defendant": "Blue Ridge Landfill", "subject_matter": "Landfill royalty / solid waste", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Royalty owed on revenues from disposal beyond \"the Property\" — contract construction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Venue / venue-selection clause", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Royalties", "procedural_posture": "Motion for summary judgment", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461389/24-bc11a-0024-arnold-v-blue-ridge-landfill-2025-tex-bus-38.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": true, "page_count": 5, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (royalty)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment arguing that a contract does not require it to pay royalty payments on \"revenues actually received by [the defendant] for final disposal of solid waste in the sanitary landfill operated on the Property,\" where the disposal is in a part of the landfill that is not on the Property.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "media_id": "1461389", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461389/24-bc11a-0024-arnold-v-blue-ridge-landfill-2025-tex-bus-38.pdf", "source_line_range": "L399-L403", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Summary judgment denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Royalty payments", "grok_outcome": "Summary judgment denied", "grok_key_factors": "Royalty obligation on revenues actually received", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Royalty payments" ], "pdf_fetch_failure_reason": "image-only scan, OCR required", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 37", "year": 2025, "num": 37, "date": "September 23, 2025", "division": "4th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Barrett v. Barrett", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "Supplemental jurisdiction", "Probate / trust carve-out" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case concerning trusts from statutory probate court to the business court. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the claims asserted by the plaintiff arise out of Title 9 of the Property Code, and under section 25A.004(g) of the Texas Government Code, this court does not have jurisdiction over such claims unless they are part of the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which requires agreement of the parties. Here, the parties disagreed.", "mediaId": "1461336", "op_no": 37, "date_iso": "2025-09-23", "mem_op": false, "case": "Barrett v. Barrett", "plaintiff": "Barrett", "defendant": "Barrett", "subject_matter": "Trust litigation / probate jurisdiction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "§25A.004(g) excludes Title 9 Property Code claims; supplemental jurisdiction requires party agreement", "jurisdictional_issue": "Supplemental jurisdiction; Probate / trust carve-out", "primary_claim_family": "Trust / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Removal from statutory probate court", "result": "JURISDICTION_DENIED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461336/25-bc04a-0013-barrett-v-barrett-2025-tex-bus-37.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Trust-related claims", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case concerning trusts from statutory probate court to the business court. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the claims asserted by the plaintiff arise out of Title 9 of the Property Code, and under section 25A.004(g) of the Texas Government Code, this court does not have jurisdiction over such claims unless they are part of the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which requires agreement of the parties. Here, the parties disagreed.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Supplemental jurisdiction", "Probate / trust carve-out" ], "media_id": "1461336", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461336/25-bc04a-0013-barrett-v-barrett-2025-tex-bus-37.pdf", "source_line_range": "L404-L407", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Claims arise under Property Code Title 9; no supplemental jurisdiction without agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 36", "year": 2025, "num": 36, "date": "September 18, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Force Majeure", "claims": [ "force_majeure" ], "summary": "In this force-majeure dispute arising out of a contract for the purchase and sale of natural gas based on the North American Energy Standards Board base-contract form, the parties dispute (a) whether the transaction confirmations are part of their contract and (b) which one controls over the other. The Court holds that, although the seller’s transaction confirmation identifies a delivery term on which the buyer’s confirmation is silent, the two confirmations do not materially conflict. Thus, both transaction confirmations combine with the base contract to form a single, integrated agreement, and neither confirmation trumps the other.", "mediaId": "1461293", "op_no": 36, "date_iso": "2025-09-18", "mem_op": false, "case": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America", "plaintiff": "Marathon Oil", "defendant": "Mercuria Energy America", "subject_matter": "Natural gas / NAESB base contract", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Two transaction confirmations not materially conflicting; both combine with base contract into single integrated agreement", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Energy", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on contract integration", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461293/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-36.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (natural-gas supply); Force majeure", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": "Y", "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In this force-majeure dispute arising out of a contract for the purchase and sale of natural gas based on the North American Energy Standards Board base-contract form, the parties dispute (a) whether the transaction confirmations are part of their contract and (b) which one controls over the other. The Court holds that, although the seller’s transaction confirmation identifies a delivery term on which the buyer’s confirmation is silent, the two confirmations do not materially conflict. Thus, both transaction confirmations combine with the base contract to form a single, integrated agreement, and neither confirmation trumps the other.", "claim_summary": "Force Majeure", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461293", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461293/25-bc11a-0013-marathon-oil-v-mercuria-energy-america-2025-tex-bus-36.pdf", "source_line_range": "L408-L412", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on contract integration", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Contract formation / transaction confirmations", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on contract integration", "grok_key_factors": "Both confirmations + base contract form single integrated agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Contract formation / transaction confirmations" ], "audit_status": "PATCHED_2026-05-23_division_corrected_from_3d_to_11th_via_URL_slug_25-bc11a + companion opinions 2025-39/40", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 35", "year": 2025, "num": 35, "date": "September 17, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Fraud Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Securities Purchase Agreement", "claims": [ "fraud_misrepresentation", "fraudulent_concealment", "securities_purchase_agreement" ], "summary": "This opinion addresses when statutes of limitations accrue and the application of the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment principles regarding claims of fraudulent statements contained in a securities purchase agreement.", "mediaId": "1461287", "op_no": 35, "date_iso": "2025-09-17", "mem_op": false, "case": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments", "plaintiff": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I", "defendant": "CLG Investments", "subject_matter": "Securities / purchase agreement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Accrual of limitations; discovery rule and fraudulent concealment applied to securities-purchase-agreement claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Securities / Fraud", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on limitations / discovery rule", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461287/25-bc01b-0006-riverside-strategic-capital-fund-i-v-clg-investments-2025-tex-bus-35.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Securities fraud (purchase agreement); Fraudulent inducement", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": "Y", "Fraudulent concealment": "Y", "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": "Y", "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses when statutes of limitations accrue and the application of the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment principles regarding claims of fraudulent statements contained in a securities purchase agreement.", "claim_summary": "Fraud Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Securities Purchase Agreement", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1461287", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461287/25-bc01b-0006-riverside-strategic-capital-fund-i-v-clg-investments-2025-tex-bus-35.pdf", "source_line_range": "L413-L417", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on accrual and discovery rule", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Fraud; statute of limitations / discovery rule", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on accrual and discovery rule", "grok_key_factors": "Fraudulent statements in securities purchase agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Fraud; statute of limitations / discovery rule" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 34", "year": 2025, "num": 34, "date": "August 25, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Reed v. Rook TX", "industry": "Transportation", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remanded to district court", "jurIssues": [ "Trade-regulation (§25A.004(d)(4))", "Supplemental jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "Negligence Per Se", "claims": [ "negligence_per_se" ], "summary": "On a renewed motion to remand, the Court holds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action as pleaded in the plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Petition and remands the case. The Court concludes that it (a) cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the plaintiff never agreed that the action could proceed in this Court; (b) does not have qualified-transaction jurisdiction because the value of the consideration for the alleged prospective contract, determined at the time of the transaction, would be below the minimum; and (c) does not have trade-regulation jurisdiction because the alleged negligence per se claim, if recognized in Texas, would be a tort claim rather than a trade-regulation claim.", "mediaId": "1461116", "op_no": 34, "date_iso": "2025-08-25", "mem_op": false, "case": "Reed v. Rook TX", "plaintiff": "Reed", "defendant": "Rook TX", "subject_matter": "Subject-matter jurisdiction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No supplemental jurisdiction (no party agreement); no qualified transaction (value below minimum); no trade-regulation jurisdiction (alleged negligence per se is tort, not trade regulation)", "jurisdictional_issue": "Trade-regulation (§25A.004(d)(4)); Supplemental jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Renewed motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461116/25-bc03a-0007-reed-v-rook-tx-2025-tex-bus-34.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Negligence per se (alleged); Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": "Y" }, "summary_verbatim": "On a renewed motion to remand, the Court holds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action as pleaded in the plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Petition and remands the case. The Court concludes that it (a) cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the plaintiff never agreed that the action could proceed in this Court; (b) does not have qualified-transaction jurisdiction because the value of the consideration for the alleged prospective contract, determined at the time of the transaction, would be below the minimum; and (c) does not have trade-regulation jurisdiction because the alleged negligence per se claim, if recognized in Texas, would be a tort claim rather than a trade-regulation claim.", "claim_summary": "Negligence Per Se", "jur_issues": [ "Trade-regulation (§25A.004(d)(4))", "Supplemental jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1461116", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461116/25-bc03a-0007-reed-v-rook-tx-2025-tex-bus-34.pdf", "source_line_range": "L418-L422", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "No supplemental jurisdiction; amount-in-controversy and trade-regulation claims fail", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 33", "year": 2025, "num": 33, "date": "August 19, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a special appearance due to no minimum contacts in Texas.", "mediaId": "1461097", "op_no": 33, "date_iso": "2025-08-19", "mem_op": true, "case": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments", "plaintiff": "Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I", "defendant": "CLG Investments", "subject_matter": "Investment fund / personal jurisdiction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No minimum contacts in Texas", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461097/25-bc01b-0006-riverside-strategic-capital-fund-i-v-clg-investments-2025-tex-bus-33.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a special appearance due to no minimum contacts in Texas.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1461097", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461097/25-bc01b-0006-riverside-strategic-capital-fund-i-v-clg-investments-2025-tex-bus-33.pdf", "source_line_range": "L423-L427", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "grok_key_factors": "No minimum contacts", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 32", "year": 2025, "num": 32, "date": "August 14, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": false, "caption": "Martens v. Lamkin Land and Cattle Company", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss; Plea in abatement", "ruling": "Dismissed", "jurIssues": [ "Dominant jurisdiction / abatement" ], "claimSummary": "Winding Up Dissolution", "claims": [ "winding_up_dissolution" ], "summary": "This case presents two issues: (i) whether the Business Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s application for an involuntary winding-up of a limited liability company, and, if so, (ii) whether an earlier-filed lawsuit in district court between the same parties requires dismissal or abatement of this action under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction. The Court concludes it has subject-matter jurisdiction and that the district court case and this case are not sufficiently interrelated to invoke dominant jurisdiction. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plea to the jurisdiction, and plea in abatement are denied.", "mediaId": "1461070", "op_no": 32, "date_iso": "2025-08-14", "mem_op": false, "case": "Martens v. Lamkin Land and Cattle Company", "plaintiff": "Martens", "defendant": "Lamkin Land and Cattle Company", "subject_matter": "LLC dissolution / dominant jurisdiction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Subject-matter jurisdiction over involuntary wind-up confirmed; earlier district-court case not sufficiently interrelated for dominant jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Dominant jurisdiction / abatement", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Winding Up", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss / plea to jurisdiction / plea in abatement", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461070/25-bc08b-0009-martens-v-lamkin-land-cattle-company-2025-tex-bus-32.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "LLC involuntary wind-up", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": "Y", "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This case presents two issues: (i) whether the Business Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s application for an involuntary winding-up of a limited liability company, and, if so, (ii) whether an earlier-filed lawsuit in district court between the same parties requires dismissal or abatement of this action under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction. The Court concludes it has subject-matter jurisdiction and that the district court case and this case are not sufficiently interrelated to invoke dominant jurisdiction. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plea to the jurisdiction, and plea in abatement are denied.", "claim_summary": "Winding Up Dissolution", "jur_issues": [ "Dominant jurisdiction / abatement" ], "media_id": "1461070", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461070/25-bc08b-0009-martens-v-lamkin-land-cattle-company-2025-tex-bus-32.pdf", "source_line_range": "L428-L432", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction / abatement denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Involuntary winding-up of LLC", "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction / abatement denied", "grok_key_factors": "Business Court has jurisdiction; no dominant jurisdiction", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Involuntary winding-up of LLC" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [ "Motion to dismiss", "Plea in abatement" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 31", "year": 2025, "num": 31, "date": "August 12, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Chaudhry v. Stillwater Capital Investments", "industry": "Financial Services / Investment", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "Fraud Misrepresentation", "claims": [ "fraud_misrepresentation" ], "summary": "This case concerns whether (i) a party must file a separate removal notice, consent to removal, or join in another party’s notice to argue that the case is removed as to it; (ii) claims alleging common law and statutory fraud inducing a member to enter an LLC company agreement are actions “regarding” the company’s “internal affairs” or “governing documents”; (iii) the case-wide amount in controversy requirement encompasses counterclaims; and (iv) this court recognizes non-statutory grounds for declining to exercise original subject matter jurisdiction. Note: A corrected opinion was posted on October 17, 2025, correcting a paragraph numbering error.", "mediaId": "1461411", "op_no": 31, "date_iso": "2025-08-12", "mem_op": false, "case": "Chaudhry v. Stillwater Capital Investments", "plaintiff": "Chaudhry", "defendant": "Stillwater Capital Investments", "subject_matter": "LLC company-agreement fraud", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Fraud inducing entry into LLC company agreement is action \"regarding\" internal affairs; AIC encompasses counterclaims; no non-statutory grounds for declining original SMJ", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b)); Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Fraud / Entity Governance", "procedural_posture": "Removal / consent / amount-in-controversy challenge", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461411/25-bc01b-0017-chaudhry-v-stillwater-capital-investments-2025-tex-bus-31-corrected-10-17-25.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Fraud (common law and statutory); Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": "Y", "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This case concerns whether (i) a party must file a separate removal notice, consent to removal, or join in another party’s notice to argue that the case is removed as to it; (ii) claims alleging common law and statutory fraud inducing a member to enter an LLC company agreement are actions “regarding” the company’s “internal affairs” or “governing documents”; (iii) the case-wide amount in controversy requirement encompasses counterclaims; and (iv) this court recognizes non-statutory grounds for declining to exercise original subject matter jurisdiction. Note: A corrected opinion was posted on October 17, 2025, correcting a paragraph numbering error.", "claim_summary": "Fraud Misrepresentation", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1461411", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461411/25-bc01b-0017-chaudhry-v-stillwater-capital-investments-2025-tex-bus-31-corrected-10-17-25.pdf", "source_line_range": "L433-L437", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on removal procedure", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Ruled on removal procedure", "grok_key_factors": "Consent and amount-in-controversy issues", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 30", "year": 2025, "num": 30, "date": "August 11, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "OWL Assetco I v. EOG Resources", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "HB 40 threshold reduction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to remand arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the $10 million minimum amount in controversy and that HB 40, lowering the requirement to $5 million, but effective after the date of the ruling, does not affect the ruling.", "mediaId": "1461062", "op_no": 30, "date_iso": "2025-08-11", "mem_op": true, "case": "OWL AssetCo1 v. EOG Resources", "plaintiff": "OWL AssetCo1", "defendant": "EOG Resources", "subject_matter": "HB 40 effective-date / amount in controversy", "key_doctrinal_issue": "HB 40 effective after ruling does not retroactively affect $10M minimum", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; HB 40 threshold reduction", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461062/25-bc11b-0027-owl-assetco1-v-eog-resources-2025-tex-bus-30.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to remand arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the $10 million minimum amount in controversy and that HB 40, lowering the requirement to $5 million, but effective after the date of the ruling, does not affect the ruling.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "HB 40 threshold reduction" ], "media_id": "1461062", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461062/25-bc11b-0027-owl-assetco1-v-eog-resources-2025-tex-bus-30.pdf", "source_line_range": "L438-L442", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Amount in controversy < $10M; HB 40 reduction does not apply retroactively", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 29", "year": 2025, "num": 29, "date": "August 4, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Stagner", "memOp": true, "caption": "M&M Livestock v. Robinson", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to satisfy the $5 million minimum amount in controversy.", "mediaId": "1461043", "op_no": 29, "date_iso": "2025-08-04", "mem_op": true, "case": "M&M Livestock v. Robinson", "plaintiff": "M&M Livestock", "defendant": "Robinson", "subject_matter": "Livestock / contract", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Plaintiffs sufficiently pled facts to satisfy $5M minimum AIC", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461043/24-bc08b-0003-mm-livestock-v-robinson-2025-tex-bus-29.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to satisfy the $5 million minimum amount in controversy.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1461043", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461043/24-bc08b-0003-mm-livestock-v-robinson-2025-tex-bus-29.pdf", "source_line_range": "L443-L447", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Amount-in-controversy pleading sufficient", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 28", "year": 2025, "num": 28, "date": "July 18, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": true, "caption": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Motion for reconsideration", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Trade Secret Tutsa", "claims": [ "trade_secret_tutsa" ], "summary": "Denying a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order arguing that the material sought was a trade secret.", "mediaId": "1460911", "op_no": 28, "date_iso": "2025-07-18", "mem_op": true, "case": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "plaintiff": "SafeLease Insurance Services", "defendant": "Storable", "subject_matter": "Insurance / discovery / trade secrets", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Trade-secret discovery-order reconsideration denied", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Discovery / Trade Secret", "procedural_posture": "Motion for reconsideration of discovery order", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460911/25-bc03a-0001-safelease-insurance-services-llc-v-storable-inc-et-al-2025-tex-bus-28.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Trade secret misappropriation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": "Y", "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order arguing that the material sought was a trade secret.", "claim_summary": "Trade Secret Tutsa", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460911", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460911/25-bc03a-0001-safelease-insurance-services-llc-v-storable-inc-et-al-2025-tex-bus-28.pdf", "source_line_range": "L449-L453", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to exclude expert testimony denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Trade secret", "grok_outcome": "Motion to exclude expert testimony denied", "grok_key_factors": "Post-temporary-injunction discovery order", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Trade secret" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Motion for reconsideration", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 27", "year": 2025, "num": 27, "date": "July 16, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "BP Energy v. Cox", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Transfer to district court", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting an unopposed motion to transfer to district court arguing that the claims at issue did not arise from a qualified transaction.", "mediaId": "1460902", "op_no": 27, "date_iso": "2025-07-16", "mem_op": true, "case": "BP Energy v. Cox", "plaintiff": "BP Energy", "defendant": "Cox", "subject_matter": "Energy / qualified-transaction definition", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Claims did not arise from a qualified transaction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Transfer", "procedural_posture": "Unopposed motion to transfer to district court", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460902/24-bc01a-0002-bp-energy-company-v-cox-2025-tex-bus-27.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting an unopposed motion to transfer to district court arguing that the claims at issue did not arise from a qualified transaction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "media_id": "1460902", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460902/24-bc01a-0002-bp-energy-company-v-cox-2025-tex-bus-27.pdf", "source_line_range": "L454-L458", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Transfer to district court granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Transfer to district court granted", "grok_key_factors": "Claims do not arise from qualified transaction", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Transfer to district court", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 26", "year": 2025, "num": 26, "date": "July 16, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a special appearance arguing no purposeful contacts in Texas.", "mediaId": "1460901", "op_no": 26, "date_iso": "2025-07-16", "mem_op": true, "case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "plaintiff": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund", "defendant": "Primexx Energy Corporation", "subject_matter": "Energy fund / partnership", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No purposeful contacts in Texas", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460901/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-v-primexx-energy-corporation-2025-tex-bus-26.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a special appearance arguing no purposeful contacts in Texas.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1460901", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460901/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-v-primexx-energy-corporation-2025-tex-bus-26.pdf", "source_line_range": "L460-L464", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance granted", "grok_key_factors": "No purposeful contacts", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 25", "year": 2025, "num": 25, "date": "June 30, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Kassam v. Dosani", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction; Motion to sever", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a motion to sever claims allegedly improperly joined. Denying a plea to the jurisdiction because movants did not meet their burden to establish that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million.", "mediaId": "1460812", "op_no": 25, "date_iso": "2025-06-30", "mem_op": true, "case": "Kassam v. Dosani", "plaintiff": "Kassam", "defendant": "Dosani", "subject_matter": "Joinder and AIC", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Movants failed to establish AIC does not exceed $5M", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Motion to sever; Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460812/24-bc11a-0021-kassam-v-dosani-memorandum-opinion-and-order-denying-defendants-motion-to-sever-and-plea-to-jurisdiction.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Misjoinder", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a motion to sever claims allegedly improperly joined. Denying a plea to the jurisdiction because movants did not meet their burden to establish that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1460812", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460812/24-bc11a-0021-kassam-v-dosani-memorandum-opinion-and-order-denying-defendants-motion-to-sever-and-plea-to-jurisdiction.pdf", "source_line_range": "L465-L470", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to sever / plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Motion to sever / plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Amount in controversy satisfied", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [ "Motion to sever" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 24", "year": 2025, "num": 24, "date": "June 30, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "The Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(d)(1) because the amount in controversy does not exceed $10 million. The amount in controversy is the actual damages sought by Plaintiff for unpaid royalties on saltwater transported in pipelines subject to the royalty agreement from the date the agreement was signed to the date the action was filed. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that unpaid royalties on the total volume of saltwater transported in these pipelines during this period would not exceed $4.5 million. The amount in controversy does not include the value of the purported right at stake to receive disputed royalties on discarded saltwater for the life of the agreement, as urged by Defendant.", "mediaId": "1460813", "op_no": 24, "date_iso": "2025-06-30", "mem_op": false, "case": "Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian", "plaintiff": "Black Mountain SWD", "defendant": "NGL Water Solutions Permian", "subject_matter": "Saltwater disposal royalties", "key_doctrinal_issue": "AIC limited to unpaid royalties from agreement-signing to suit-filing; does not include lifetime value of right", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Jurisdictional ruling", "result": "JURISDICTION_DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460813/25-bc08a-0004-black-mountain-swd-v-ngl-water-solutions-permian-opinion-and-order-on-motion-to-remand.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract (royalty agreement)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "The Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(d)(1) because the amount in controversy does not exceed $10 million. The amount in controversy is the actual damages sought by Plaintiff for unpaid royalties on saltwater transported in pipelines subject to the royalty agreement from the date the agreement was signed to the date the action was filed. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that unpaid royalties on the total volume of saltwater transported in these pipelines during this period would not exceed $4.5 million. The amount in controversy does not include the value of the purported right at stake to receive disputed royalties on discarded saltwater for the life of the agreement, as urged by Defendant.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1460813", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460813/25-bc08a-0004-black-mountain-swd-v-ngl-water-solutions-permian-opinion-and-order-on-motion-to-remand.pdf", "source_line_range": "L471-L475", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Royalty", "grok_outcome": "Jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Amount in controversy < $10M; future royalties not included", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Royalty" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 23", "year": 2025, "num": 23, "date": "June 18, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Reed v. Rook TX", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remand denied", "jurIssues": [ "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "On a motion to remand, the Court holds that this action concerns a limited partnership’s “governance, governing documents, or internal affairs,” and thus falls within the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(b)(2) of the Government Code, because it concerns when the partnership was formed, whether it was formed for improper purposes, and whether the plaintiff can recover partnership proceeds from its partners and others. In doing so, the Court rejects the movant’s argument that Section 25A.004(b)(2) applies only if an organization’s governance, governing documents, or internal affairs are the predominant focus of the case.", "mediaId": "1460789", "op_no": 23, "date_iso": "2025-06-18", "mem_op": false, "case": "Reed v. Rook TX", "plaintiff": "Reed", "defendant": "Rook TX", "subject_matter": "Limited partnership / internal affairs", "key_doctrinal_issue": "§25A.004(b)(2) \"governance, governing documents, or internal affairs\" jurisdiction does not require predominant focus", "jurisdictional_issue": "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460789/25-bc03a-0007-reed-v-rook-tx-opinion-and-order-denying-motion-to-remand-with-syllabus.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; LP governance", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "On a motion to remand, the Court holds that this action concerns a limited partnership’s “governance, governing documents, or internal affairs,” and thus falls within the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(b)(2) of the Government Code, because it concerns when the partnership was formed, whether it was formed for improper purposes, and whether the plaintiff can recover partnership proceeds from its partners and others. In doing so, the Court rejects the movant’s argument that Section 25A.004(b)(2) applies only if an organization’s governance, governing documents, or internal affairs are the predominant focus of the case.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Internal-affairs / governance (§25A.004(b))" ], "media_id": "1460789", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460789/25-bc03a-0007-reed-v-rook-tx-opinion-and-order-denying-motion-to-remand-with-syllabus.pdf", "source_line_range": "L476-L480", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "Action concerns limited-partnership governance / internal affairs", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 22", "year": 2025, "num": 22, "date": "May 23, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses whether the Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(1) and whether the Defendant successfully challenged jurisdiction on the grounds of pleading insufficiency and existence of jurisdictional facts. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient jurisdictional allegations and the Defendant failed to successfully refute these allegations, the Court must deny Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.", "mediaId": "1460607", "op_no": 22, "date_iso": "2025-05-23", "mem_op": false, "case": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating", "plaintiff": "Slant Operating", "defendant": "Octane Energy Operating", "subject_matter": "Oil & gas / jurisdictional pleading", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Sufficient jurisdictional allegations under §25A.004(d)(1); defendant did not successfully refute", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460607/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-ptj-denied.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses whether the Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(1) and whether the Defendant successfully challenged jurisdiction on the grounds of pleading insufficiency and existence of jurisdictional facts. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient jurisdictional allegations and the Defendant failed to successfully refute these allegations, the Court must deny Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))" ], "media_id": "1460607", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460607/24-bc08a-0002-slant-operating-v-octane-energy-operating-ptj-denied.pdf", "source_line_range": "L481-L485", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Sufficient jurisdictional allegations", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 21", "year": 2025, "num": 21, "date": "May 22, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Substantive ruling", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Joint Venture Partnership Dispute", "claims": [ "joint_venture_partnership_dispute" ], "summary": "Ruling that a partnership agreement exempts certain defendants from liability.", "mediaId": "1460590", "op_no": 21, "date_iso": "2025-05-22", "mem_op": true, "case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "plaintiff": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund", "defendant": "Primexx Energy Corporation", "subject_matter": "Partnership agreement / liability exemption", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Partnership agreement exempts certain defendants from liability", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Entity Governance / Contract", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on liability exemption", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460590/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-lp-et-al-v-primexx-energy-corporation-et-al-some-defendants-dismissed.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty; Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": "Y", "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Ruling that a partnership agreement exempts certain defendants from liability.", "claim_summary": "Joint Venture Partnership Dispute", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460590", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460590/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-lp-et-al-v-primexx-energy-corporation-et-al-some-defendants-dismissed.pdf", "source_line_range": "L486-L490", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Partial summary judgment", "grok_key_factors": "Partnership-agreement exemption from liability", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 20", "year": 2025, "num": 20, "date": "May 20, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Dorfman", "memOp": true, "caption": "NGL Water Solutions Permian v Lime Rock Resources", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Transfer of venue", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to transfer venue arguing mandatory venue because the suit arises out of damages to real property and considering the applicability of a venue-selection agreement. Dismissing the case because the court granted a motion to transfer venue to a county outside the Business Court divisions and the non-movant fails to make an election under section 25A.006(b) or (c).", "mediaId": "1460557", "op_no": 20, "date_iso": "2025-05-20", "mem_op": true, "case": "NGL Water Solutions Permian v Lime Rock Resources", "plaintiff": "NGL Water Solutions Permian", "defendant": "Lime Rock Resources", "subject_matter": "Real property / venue", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Mandatory venue applied; venue-selection agreement analyzed; case dismissed where non-movant failed to elect under §25A.006(b)/(c)", "jurisdictional_issue": "Venue / venue-selection clause", "primary_claim_family": "Venue / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Motion to transfer venue", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460557/25-bc11b-0005-ngl-water-solutions-permian-v-lime-rock-resources-v-a-et-al-mem-op-transfer-venue.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Damage to real property; Venue", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to transfer venue arguing mandatory venue because the suit arises out of damages to real property and considering the applicability of a venue-selection agreement. Dismissing the case because the court granted a motion to transfer venue to a county outside the Business Court divisions and the non-movant fails to make an election under section 25A.006(b) or (c).", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Venue / venue-selection clause" ], "media_id": "1460557", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460557/25-bc11b-0005-ngl-water-solutions-permian-v-lime-rock-resources-v-a-et-al-mem-op-transfer-venue.pdf", "source_line_range": "L491-L495", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Transfer granted; case dismissed", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Transfer granted; case dismissed", "grok_key_factors": "Mandatory venue for real-property damages", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Transfer of venue", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 19", "year": 2025, "num": 19, "date": "May 16, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "Westlake Longview v. Eastman Chemical", "industry": "Telecom", "posture": "Discovery motion", "ruling": "Order issued", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses the applicable legal tests and evidentiary burdens for deciding whether discovery material may be designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under a protective order and whether in-house counsel should be granted access to AEO-designated material. Both inquiries require a balancing of the parties’ competing interests based on specific, non-conclusory evidence that has not yet been presented in this case.", "mediaId": "1460561", "op_no": 19, "date_iso": "2025-05-16", "mem_op": false, "case": "Westlake Longview v. Eastman Chemical", "plaintiff": "Westlake Longview", "defendant": "Eastman Chemical", "subject_matter": "Discovery / Attorney's-Eyes-Only", "key_doctrinal_issue": "AEO designation and in-house counsel access require balancing on specific, non-conclusory evidence", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Discovery", "procedural_posture": "Discovery / AEO designation", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460561/24-bc11b-0023-westlake-longview-corporation-v-eastman-chemical-co-opinion-on-motion-for-protective-order-revised.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Discovery / protective order", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the applicable legal tests and evidentiary burdens for deciding whether discovery material may be designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under a protective order and whether in-house counsel should be granted access to AEO-designated material. Both inquiries require a balancing of the parties’ competing interests based on specific, non-conclusory evidence that has not yet been presented in this case.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460561", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460561/24-bc11b-0023-westlake-longview-corporation-v-eastman-chemical-co-opinion-on-motion-for-protective-order-revised.pdf", "source_line_range": "L496-L499", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on AEO designation", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Ruled on AEO designation", "grok_key_factors": "Balancing test for attorney’s eyes only and in-house counsel access", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Discovery motion", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 18", "year": 2025, "num": 18, "date": "May 14, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy", "Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e))" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action. In so holding, the Court reaches two conclusions. The first conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.001(d)(1) of the Texas Government Code because there is no “qualified transaction.” None of the transactions identified by Defendants, especially the construction-project bids, involves a consummated agreement or contract that would obligate or entitle a party to pay or receive consideration of at least $10 million. The second conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.004(e) of the Texas Government Code because, for jurisdiction to exist under subsection (e), jurisdiction must exist under subsection (d)(1).", "mediaId": "1460519", "op_no": 18, "date_iso": "2025-05-14", "mem_op": false, "case": "G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher", "plaintiff": "G-Force & Associates", "defendant": "Bloecher", "subject_matter": "Construction bids / qualified transaction", "key_doctrinal_issue": "No qualified transaction (bids not consummated agreements ≥ $10M); §25A.004(e) requires underlying (d)(1) jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Amount-in-controversy; Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e))", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "JURISDICTION_DENIED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460519/25-bc08a-0003-g-force-associates-v-bloecher-et-al-remand-no-qualified-transaction.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action. In so holding, the Court reaches two conclusions. The first conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.001(d)(1) of the Texas Government Code because there is no “qualified transaction.” None of the transactions identified by Defendants, especially the construction-project bids, involves a consummated agreement or contract that would obligate or entitle a party to pay or receive consideration of at least $10 million. The second conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.004(e) of the Texas Government Code because, for jurisdiction to exist under subsection (e), jurisdiction must exist under subsection (d)(1).", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy", "Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e))" ], "media_id": "1460519", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460519/25-bc08a-0003-g-force-associates-v-bloecher-et-al-remand-no-qualified-transaction.pdf", "source_line_range": "L500-L505", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "No qualified transaction", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 17", "year": 2025, "num": 17, "date": "May 13, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": true, "caption": "CreateAI Holdings f/n/a TuSimple Holding v. Bot Auto TX", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Motion to dismiss", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Declaratory Judgment", "claims": [ "declaratory_judgment" ], "summary": "Granting a motion to dismiss certain counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment under the \"mirror image\" rule.", "mediaId": "1460514", "op_no": 17, "date_iso": "2025-05-13", "mem_op": true, "case": "CreateAI Holdings f/n/a TuSimple Holding v. Bot Auto TX", "plaintiff": "CreateAI Holdings", "defendant": "Bot Auto TX", "subject_matter": "Autonomous-vehicle technology / declaratory relief", "key_doctrinal_issue": "\"Mirror image\" rule applied to dismiss certain DJ counterclaims", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Declaratory / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss (mirror-image rule)", "result": "GRANTED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460514/24-bc11a-0007-createai-holdings-v-bot-auto-rule-91a-mem-op.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Declaratory judgment", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": "Y", "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to dismiss certain counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment under the \"mirror image\" rule.", "claim_summary": "Declaratory Judgment", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460514", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460514/24-bc11a-0007-createai-holdings-v-bot-auto-rule-91a-mem-op.pdf", "source_line_range": "L506-L510", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to dismiss counterclaims granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Declaratory judgment (mirror-image rule)", "grok_outcome": "Motion to dismiss counterclaims granted", "grok_key_factors": "Mirror-image rule bars declaratory relief", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Declaratory judgment (mirror-image rule)" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Motion to dismiss", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 16", "year": 2025, "num": 16, "date": "May 13, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Atlas IDF v. NexPoint Real Estate Partners", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses Texas Government Code Chapter 25A’s use of “qualified transaction,” including (i) when an action “aris[es] out of” a qualified transaction; (ii) the relevant period for determining the aggregate value of a qualified transaction; and (iii) the burden for establishing the same. The opinion also addresses what forms of “interest” are excluded in determining the amount in controversy under this chapter. Considering whether this action arises out of a qualified transaction.", "mediaId": "1460515", "op_no": 16, "date_iso": "2025-05-13", "mem_op": false, "case": "Atlas IDF v. NexPoint Real Estate Partners", "plaintiff": "Atlas IDF", "defendant": "NexPoint Real Estate Partners", "subject_matter": "Real estate / qualified-transaction analysis", "key_doctrinal_issue": "\"Qualified transaction\" interpretation: arising-out-of test; relevant period for aggregating value; burden; \"interest\" exclusions in AIC", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Jurisdictional ruling", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460515/25-bc01b-0004-atlas-idf-v-nexpoint-real-estate-partners-et-al-opinion-on-meaning-of-qualified-transaction.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses Texas Government Code Chapter 25A’s use of “qualified transaction,” including (i) when an action “aris[es] out of” a qualified transaction; (ii) the relevant period for determining the aggregate value of a qualified transaction; and (iii) the burden for establishing the same. The opinion also addresses what forms of “interest” are excluded in determining the amount in controversy under this chapter. Considering whether this action arises out of a qualified transaction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1460515", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460515/25-bc01b-0004-atlas-idf-v-nexpoint-real-estate-partners-et-al-opinion-on-meaning-of-qualified-transaction.pdf", "source_line_range": "L511-L514", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on qualified-transaction amount in controversy", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Ruled on qualified-transaction amount in controversy", "grok_key_factors": "Rights-at-issue valuation; interest exclusions", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 15", "year": 2025, "num": 15, "date": "April 21, 2025", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": true, "caption": "Tall v. Vanderhoef", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Rule 91a dismissal; Stay pending arbitration", "ruling": "Mixed (granted in part / denied in part)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss various claims under Rule 91a. Granting a motion to stay pending arbitration.", "mediaId": "1460352", "op_no": 15, "date_iso": "2025-04-21", "mem_op": true, "case": "Tall v. Vanderhoef", "plaintiff": "Tall", "defendant": "Vanderhoef", "subject_matter": "Arbitration / Rule 91a", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Mixed Rule 91a disposition; stay pending arbitration granted", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Arbitration / Procedure", "procedural_posture": "Motion to dismiss (Rule 91a); Motion to stay pending arbitration", "result": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460352/25-bc08a-0002-hall-v-vanderhoef-memorandum-opinion.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract; Arbitrability", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss various claims under Rule 91a. Granting a motion to stay pending arbitration.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460352", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460352/25-bc08a-0002-hall-v-vanderhoef-memorandum-opinion.pdf", "source_line_range": "L515-L520", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Partial motion to dismiss granted; stay granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED_IN_PART", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Arbitration stay", "grok_outcome": "Partial motion to dismiss granted; stay granted", "grok_key_factors": "Rule 91a and arbitration", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract", "Arbitration stay" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Rule 91a dismissal", "posture_secondary": [ "Stay pending arbitration" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 14", "year": 2025, "num": 14, "date": "April 17, 2025", "division": "4th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "In Re J.W.B.", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case that was filed in statutory probate court before September 1, 2024, but added a new defendant and corporate claims after September 1, 2024. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.", "mediaId": "1460350", "op_no": 14, "date_iso": "2025-04-17", "mem_op": false, "case": "In Re J.W.B.", "plaintiff": "In re proceeding", "defendant": "—", "subject_matter": "Statutory probate / removal commencement date", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Action commenced pre-September 1, 2024 cannot be removed despite later-added defendants and corporate claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Probate", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460350/25-bc04a-0003-in-re-jwb-trust-of-2007-et-al.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Probate; Corporate claims", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case that was filed in statutory probate court before September 1, 2024, but added a new defendant and corporate claims after September 1, 2024. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "media_id": "1460350", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460350/25-bc04a-0003-in-re-jwb-trust-of-2007-et-al.pdf", "source_line_range": "L521-L525", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Action commenced before Sept. 1, 2024", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 13", "year": 2025, "num": 13, "date": "April 15, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Summary judgment", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a motion to reconsider the granting of a motion for summary judgment in 2025 Tex. Bus. 9.", "mediaId": "1460344", "op_no": 13, "date_iso": "2025-04-15", "mem_op": true, "case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "plaintiff": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund", "defendant": "Primexx Energy Corporation", "subject_matter": "Partnership / drag-along rights", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Reconsideration of 2025 Tex. Bus. 9 SJ ruling denied", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Procedure / Entity Governance", "procedural_posture": "Motion for reconsideration", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460344/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-lp-et-al-v-primexx-energy-corporation-et-al-reconsideration.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty; Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a motion to reconsider the granting of a motion for summary judgment in 2025 Tex. Bus. 9.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460344", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460344/24-bc01b-0010-primexx-energy-opportunity-fund-lp-et-al-v-primexx-energy-corporation-et-al-reconsideration.pdf", "source_line_range": "L526-L530", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Reconsideration denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Reconsideration denied", "grok_key_factors": "Summary judgment on partnership agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Summary judgment", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 12", "year": 2025, "num": 12, "date": "March 28, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Targa Northern Delaware v. Franklin Mountain Energy 2 (n/k/a Conterra Energy Operating M)", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction; Motion to sever", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Of Contract", "claims": [ "breach_of_contract" ], "summary": "Denying a plea to the jurisdiction in a case about an alleged breach of contract concerning natural gas deliveries from New Mexico to Texas, where the movant argues that the case is about real property interests in New Mexico (natural gas still in the ground in New Mexico), but the non-movant argues that it is about severed personal property (natural gas produced in New Mexico) delivered to Texas with only incidental implications for the real property in New Mexico.", "mediaId": "1460219", "op_no": 12, "date_iso": "2025-03-28", "mem_op": true, "case": "Targa Northern Delaware v. Franklin Mountain Energy 2 (n/k/a Conterra Energy Operating M)", "plaintiff": "Targa Northern Delaware", "defendant": "Franklin Mountain Energy 2 / Conterra Energy Operating M", "subject_matter": "Natural gas / interstate delivery", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Severed personal property (produced gas) — not real-property interest — supports TBC jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Contract / Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460219/24-bc01b-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": "Y", "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a plea to the jurisdiction in a case about an alleged breach of contract concerning natural gas deliveries from New Mexico to Texas, where the movant argues that the case is about real property interests in New Mexico (natural gas still in the ground in New Mexico), but the non-movant argues that it is about severed personal property (natural gas produced in New Mexico) delivered to Texas with only incidental implications for the real property in New Mexico.", "claim_summary": "Breach Of Contract", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460219", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460219/24-bc01b-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L531-L534", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": true, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Natural-gas delivery contract is personal property", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of contract" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [ "Motion to sever" ] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 11", "year": 2025, "num": 11, "date": "March 11, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "ET Gathering & Processing v. Tellurian Production", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Plea to jurisdiction", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "In a plea to the jurisdiction, Defendant challenged the Court’s authority to hear this case by arguing the amount in controversy pleaded by Plaintiff was merely a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining this court’s jurisdiction. Applying Texas’s well-established plea to the jurisdiction standard, the Court concluded Defendant did not produce evidence that Plaintiff’s actions amounted to a sham and denied Defendant’s plea.", "mediaId": "1460153", "op_no": 11, "date_iso": "2025-03-11", "mem_op": false, "case": "ET Gathering & Processing v. Tellurian Production", "plaintiff": "ET Gathering & Processing", "defendant": "Tellurian Production", "subject_matter": "Energy / sham-AIC challenge", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Sham-AIC allegation requires evidence; bare allegations insufficient", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Plea to the jurisdiction", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460153/24-bc11a-0028.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In a plea to the jurisdiction, Defendant challenged the Court’s authority to hear this case by arguing the amount in controversy pleaded by Plaintiff was merely a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining this court’s jurisdiction. Applying Texas’s well-established plea to the jurisdiction standard, the Court concluded Defendant did not produce evidence that Plaintiff’s actions amounted to a sham and denied Defendant’s plea.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy" ], "media_id": "1460153", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460153/24-bc11a-0028.pdf", "source_line_range": "L535-L538", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Plea to jurisdiction denied", "grok_key_factors": "Sham-pleading argument rejected", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Plea to jurisdiction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 10", "year": 2025, "num": 10, "date": "March 11, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": true, "caption": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Temporary injunction", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Injunctive Relief", "claims": [ "injunctive_relief" ], "summary": "Denying a post-temporary-injunction hearing motion to exclude expert testimony given at the hearing. Denying an objection to a temporary-injunction order arguing that the order decides the ultimate merits of the case rather than a probable right to recover.", "mediaId": "1460143", "op_no": 10, "date_iso": "2025-03-11", "mem_op": true, "case": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "plaintiff": "SafeLease Insurance Services", "defendant": "Storable", "subject_matter": "Insurance / TI procedure", "key_doctrinal_issue": "TI order does not improperly decide ultimate merits — only probable right to recover", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Injunction / Evidence", "procedural_posture": "Motion to exclude expert testimony; Objection to TI order", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460143/25-bc03a-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Trade secret misappropriation; Temporary injunction", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": "Y", "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a post-temporary-injunction hearing motion to exclude expert testimony given at the hearing. Denying an objection to a temporary-injunction order arguing that the order decides the ultimate merits of the case rather than a probable right to recover.", "claim_summary": "Injunctive Relief", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460143", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460143/25-bc-bc03a-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L539-L544", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Motion to exclude expert testimony denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Trade secret / temporary injunction", "grok_outcome": "Motion to exclude expert testimony denied", "grok_key_factors": "Post-injunction discovery order", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Trade secret / temporary injunction" ], "pdf_url_needs_verification": "Auto-corrected from `25-bc-bc03a-0001.pdf` to `25-bc03a-0001.pdf` 2026-05-23; if 404, Shane must fetch directly from txcourts.gov media library and update.", "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Temporary injunction", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 9", "year": 2025, "num": 9, "date": "March 10, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "claimSummary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute, Buy Sell Drag Along", "claims": [ "breach_fiduciary_duty", "joint_venture_partnership_dispute", "buy_sell_drag_along" ], "summary": "This opinion addresses the nature, scope, adaptability, and enforcement of a partner’s statutory duties of loyalty and care and obligation to perform them in (i) good faith and (ii) a manner it reasonably believes to be in the partnership’s best interest when that partner exercised its drag-along rights and sold the partnership’s business. Texas’s freedom of contract principles give partners wide latitude to expand or limit their conduct standards. But the loyalty and care duties and related performance obligations cannot be eliminated. This partnership agreement expressly limits those duties and obligations to the greatest extent permitted by law. This case centers on the enforceability of those limits.", "mediaId": "1460139", "op_no": 9, "date_iso": "2025-03-10", "mem_op": false, "case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "plaintiff": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund", "defendant": "Primexx Energy Corporation", "subject_matter": "Partnership / drag-along / fiduciary duties", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Partnership freedom-of-contract; loyalty and care duties and performance obligations cannot be eliminated though may be expanded/limited", "jurisdictional_issue": "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)", "primary_claim_family": "Fiduciary / Entity Governance", "procedural_posture": "Substantive ruling on partner duties", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460139/24-bc01b-0010.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of fiduciary duty (loyalty and care); Breach of contract (drag-along)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": "Y", "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": "Y", "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": "Y", "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the nature, scope, adaptability, and enforcement of a partner’s statutory duties of loyalty and care and obligation to perform them in (i) good faith and (ii) a manner it reasonably believes to be in the partnership’s best interest when that partner exercised its drag-along rights and sold the partnership’s business. Texas’s freedom of contract principles give partners wide latitude to expand or limit their conduct standards. But the loyalty and care duties and related performance obligations cannot be eliminated. This partnership agreement expressly limits those duties and obligations to the greatest extent permitted by law. This case centers on the enforceability of those limits.", "claim_summary": "Breach Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture Partnership Dispute, Buy Sell Drag Along", "jur_issues": [ "Merits (no jurisdictional issue)" ], "media_id": "1460139", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460139/24-bc01b-0010.pdf", "source_line_range": "L545-L549", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Ruled on fiduciary duties", "canonical_disposition_code": "ORDER_ENTERED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": true, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": "Fiduciary duties of loyalty and care; drag-along rights", "grok_outcome": "Ruled on fiduciary duties", "grok_key_factors": "Duties cannot be eliminated; agreement limits them to greatest extent permitted", "claims_adjudicated": [ "Breach of fiduciary duty", "Fiduciary duties of loyalty and care; drag-along rights" ], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 8", "year": 2025, "num": 8, "date": "February 25, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": false, "caption": "Cypress Town Center v. Kimco Realty Services", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand/removability", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed in the district court before September 1, 2024, where a publicly traded company was joined as a defendant in the underlying case after September 1, 2024, and Defendants filed an opposed notice of removal within thirty days of the publicly traded defendant’s joinder. The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”", "mediaId": "1460072", "op_no": 8, "date_iso": "2025-02-25", "mem_op": false, "case": "Cypress Town Center v. Kimco Realty Services", "plaintiff": "Cypress Town Center", "defendant": "Kimco Realty Services", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement / post-joinder", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Section 8 of HB 19 limits Chapter 25A to actions commenced on or after Sept. 1, 2024 — joinder of public defendant insufficient", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics; Removal-deadline (30-day)", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "JURISDICTION_DENIED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460072/24-bc11a-0013.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed in the district court before September 1, 2024, where a publicly traded company was joined as a defendant in the underlying case after September 1, 2024, and Defendants filed an opposed notice of removal within thirty days of the publicly traded defendant’s joinder. The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "media_id": "1460072", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460072/24-bc11a-0013.pdf", "source_line_range": "L550-L554", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Action commenced before Sept. 1, 2024", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand/removability", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 7", "year": 2025, "num": 7, "date": "February 11, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Sweeten", "memOp": false, "caption": "Yadav v. Agrawal", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "In this case, Defendants attempted to remove an action filed on May 1, 2024, to the Texas Business Court. They also sought to remove claims filed on October 4, 2024, in the same lawsuit, to the Business Court. This opinion addresses whether the Business Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the initial lawsuit and whether it has jurisdiction over later-filed claims. The Court concluded that Section 8 of H.B. 19 prohibits the removal of cases filed prior to September 1, 2024. Further, the Court concluded that the claims filed in the lawsuit after September 1, 2024 are part of the same action and the Business Court lacked jurisdiction over those later-filed claims. The Court remanded the case in its entirety to the district court.", "mediaId": "1460071", "op_no": 7, "date_iso": "2025-02-11", "mem_op": false, "case": "Yadav v. Agrawal", "plaintiff": "Yadav", "defendant": "Agrawal", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement / later-filed claims", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Pre-Sept. 1 action; later-filed claims are part of same action; no partial removal of individual claims", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460071/24-bc03b-0003.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In this case, Defendants attempted to remove an action filed on May 1, 2024, to the Texas Business Court. They also sought to remove claims filed on October 4, 2024, in the same lawsuit, to the Business Court. This opinion addresses whether the Business Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the initial lawsuit and whether it has jurisdiction over later-filed claims. The Court concluded that Section 8 of H.B. 19 prohibits the removal of cases filed prior to September 1, 2024. Further, the Court concluded that the claims filed in the lawsuit after September 1, 2024 are part of the same action and the Business Court lacked jurisdiction over those later-filed claims. The Court remanded the case in its entirety to the district court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1460071", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460071/24-bc03b-0003.pdf", "source_line_range": "L555-L559", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Later-filed claims part of same action; pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 6", "year": 2025, "num": 6, "date": "February 10, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remand denied", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "On a motion to remand, the Court holds that the 30-day period for removing an action to the Business Court does not begin before the action is filed. Because Plaintiff filed its notice of removal within 30 days after this suit was filed, the notice was timely. The Court also adheres to its previous holding that an action may satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages.", "mediaId": "1460027", "op_no": 6, "date_iso": "2025-02-10", "mem_op": false, "case": "SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable", "plaintiff": "SafeLease Insurance Services", "defendant": "Storable", "subject_matter": "Removal timing / AIC", "key_doctrinal_issue": "30-day removal window does not begin pre-filing; AIC may be satisfied even when no damages sought", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; Removal mechanics; Removal-deadline (30-day)", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460027/25-bc03a-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Trade secret misappropriation", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "On a motion to remand, the Court holds that the 30-day period for removing an action to the Business Court does not begin before the action is filed. Because Plaintiff filed its notice of removal within 30 days after this suit was filed, the notice was timely. The Court also adheres to its previous holding that an action may satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Removal mechanics", "Removal-deadline (30-day)" ], "media_id": "1460027", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460027/25-bc03a-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L560-L563", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand denied", "grok_key_factors": "30-day removal period begins on filing", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 5", "year": 2025, "num": 5, "date": "February 10, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": true, "caption": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Special appearance", "ruling": "Denied (movant lost)", "jurIssues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Denying a special appearance by ruling that a party that filed an answer in an earlier iteration of the dispute in one Texas court consented to personal jurisdiction to litigate the same dispute in a later-filed suit in a different court in Texas.", "mediaId": "1460026", "op_no": 5, "date_iso": "2025-02-10", "mem_op": true, "case": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation", "plaintiff": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund", "defendant": "Primexx Energy Corporation", "subject_matter": "Partnership / personal jurisdiction by prior consent", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Answer in earlier iteration in another Texas court constitutes consent to PJ in later-filed Texas suit on same dispute", "jurisdictional_issue": "Personal jurisdiction", "primary_claim_family": "Personal Jurisdiction", "procedural_posture": "Special appearance", "result": "SPECIAL_APPEARANCE_DENIED", "disposition_code": "DENIED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460026/24-bc01b-0010.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Personal jurisdiction (special appearance)", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Denying a special appearance by ruling that a party that filed an answer in an earlier iteration of the dispute in one Texas court consented to personal jurisdiction to litigate the same dispute in a later-filed suit in a different court in Texas.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Personal jurisdiction" ], "media_id": "1460026", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460026/24-bc01b-0010.pdf", "source_line_range": "L564-L568", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Special appearance denied", "canonical_disposition_code": "DENIED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Special appearance denied", "grok_key_factors": "Consent by filing answer in earlier suit", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Special appearance", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 4", "year": 2025, "num": 4, "date": "February 4, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": false, "caption": "Sebastian v. Durant", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion concludes that, under Section 8 of House Bill 19—the court’s enabling legislation—the entirety of a civil action commences with the filing of the original petition, regardless of when additional parties and claims are joined. Additionally, Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code permits only the removal of an “action,” and not the partial removal of individual claims within an action. The court orders remand based on its lack of jurisdiction.", "mediaId": "1460011", "op_no": 4, "date_iso": "2025-02-04", "mem_op": false, "case": "Sebastian v. Durant", "plaintiff": "Sebastian", "defendant": "Durant", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement / partial removal", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Entirety of civil action commences with original petition; Chapter 25A permits only action-level removal, not claim-level", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460011/25-bc11a-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion concludes that, under Section 8 of House Bill 19—the court’s enabling legislation—the entirety of a civil action commences with the filing of the original petition, regardless of when additional parties and claims are joined. Additionally, Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code permits only the removal of an “action,” and not the partial removal of individual claims within an action. The court orders remand based on its lack of jurisdiction.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1460011", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460011/25-bc11a-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L569-L572", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Entire action commenced before Sept. 1, 2024", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 3", "year": 2025, "num": 3, "date": "January 31, 2025", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": false, "caption": "Osmose Utilities Services v. Navarro County Electric Cooperative", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion for remand, the Court holds: (1) removal of an action to the Business Court means removal of the entire suit, and (2) regardless of whether an attempted partial removal presents a jurisdictional defect, the 2022 commencement date of the underlying lawsuit forecloses jurisdiction over the action by the Business Court.", "mediaId": "1459992", "op_no": 3, "date_iso": "2025-01-31", "mem_op": false, "case": "Osmose Utilities Services v. Navarro County Electric Cooperative", "plaintiff": "Osmose Utilities Services", "defendant": "Navarro County Electric Cooperative", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Action-level (not partial) removal required; 2022 commencement forecloses TBC jurisdiction", "jurisdictional_issue": "Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459992/24-bc01a-0011.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion for remand, the Court holds: (1) removal of an action to the Business Court means removal of the entire suit, and (2) regardless of whether an attempted partial removal presents a jurisdictional defect, the 2022 commencement date of the underlying lawsuit forecloses jurisdiction over the action by the Business Court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459992", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459992/24-bc01a-0011.pdf", "source_line_range": "L573-L577", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Entire suit removed; pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 2", "year": 2025, "num": 2, "date": "January 10, 2025", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": true, "caption": "Bestway Oilfield v. Cox", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Remanded to district court", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Ruling sua sponte to remand the case back to district court because the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court, although neither party sought remand back to state court, but staying the order pending the resolution of the appeal and mandamus arising out of 2024 Tex. Bus. 2.", "mediaId": "1459932", "op_no": 2, "date_iso": "2025-01-10", "mem_op": true, "case": "Bestway Oilfield v. Cox", "plaintiff": "Bestway Oilfield", "defendant": "Cox", "subject_matter": "Sua sponte jurisdictional review", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Sua sponte remand of pre-Sept. 1 case; stay pending appeal/mandamus of 2024 Tex. Bus. 2", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Sua sponte remand; stay pending appeal", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459932/24-bc11a-0016.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Ruling sua sponte to remand the case back to district court because the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court, although neither party sought remand back to state court, but staying the order pending the resolution of the appeal and mandamus arising out of 2024 Tex. Bus. 2.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "media_id": "1459932", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459932/24-bc11a-0016.pdf", "source_line_range": "L578-L582", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted (sua sponte)", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted (sua sponte)", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 filing", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 1", "year": 2025, "num": 1, "date": "January 3, 2025", "division": "3d", "judge": "Andrews", "memOp": false, "caption": "C Ten 31 v. Tarbox", "industry": "Real Estate / Construction", "posture": "Remand; Summary judgment", "ruling": "Remanded to district court", "jurIssues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e))", "Venue / venue-selection clause", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "Fraud Misrepresentation, Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief", "claims": [ "fraud_misrepresentation", "declaratory_judgment", "injunctive_relief" ], "summary": "On a motion to remand, the Court decides issues of statutory construction and procedure relating to the scope of the Business Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(e) of the Government Code and the burden-shifting framework for challenges to amount-in-controversy pleadings in the removal context. First, the Court holds that Section 25A.004(e), which grants the Court jurisdiction over actions that seek “injunctive relief or a declaratory judgment” and involve “a dispute based on a claim within the court’s jurisdiction under Subsection (b), (c), or (d),” incorporates the amount-in-controversy limit (or exception) of the underlying Subsections—i.e., Subsection (b)’s $5 million limit, Subsection (d)’s $10 million limit, or Subsection (c)’s exemption from any amount-in-controversy limit. Here, the removing party invokes Subsection (b) as underlying the Court’s 1 jurisdiction over this action for injunctive and declaratory relief. As a result, the Court has jurisdiction only if the value of the rights at issue exceeds $5 million. Second, the Court holds that when, as here, the notice of removal pleads that the value of the rights at stake are within the Court’s jurisdiction and the petition does not plead otherwise, the party moving for remand bears the initial burden of showing that the amount pleaded is fraudulent or that a different amount is readily established, such as by statute. The Court adopts the same burden-shifting framework applied to jurisdictional challenges raised through pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for traditional summary judgment, such that the movant bears the initial burden on the pretrial motion but the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. The Court also denies a request for attorney’s fees and holds that the movant has not met its burden of proving that a venue clause in the Company Agreement applies to this action or that it binds Defendants, who are not signatories.", "mediaId": "1459894", "op_no": 1, "date_iso": "2025-01-03", "mem_op": false, "case": "C Ten 31 v. Tarbox", "plaintiff": "C Ten 31", "defendant": "Tarbox", "subject_matter": "Injunctive/declaratory relief / AIC burden", "key_doctrinal_issue": "§25A.004(e) incorporates AIC limit of underlying (b)(c)(d) subsection; burden-shifting framework adopted from plea-to-jurisdiction / traditional SJ practice; venue-clause non-application to non-signatories", "jurisdictional_issue": "Amount-in-controversy; Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e)); Venue / venue-selection clause; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Venue", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "ORDER_ENTERED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459894/24-bc03a-0004.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Declaratory judgment; Injunctive relief", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": "Y", "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": "Y", "Injunctive relief": "Y", "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "On a motion to remand, the Court decides issues of statutory construction and procedure relating to the scope of the Business Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(e) of the Government Code and the burden-shifting framework for challenges to amount-in-controversy pleadings in the removal context. First, the Court holds that Section 25A.004(e), which grants the Court jurisdiction over actions that seek “injunctive relief or a declaratory judgment” and involve “a dispute based on a claim within the court’s jurisdiction under Subsection (b), (c), or (d),” incorporates the amount-in-controversy limit (or exception) of the underlying Subsections—i.e., Subsection (b)’s $5 million limit, Subsection (d)’s $10 million limit, or Subsection (c)’s exemption from any amount-in-controversy limit. Here, the removing party invokes Subsection (b) as underlying the Court’s 1 jurisdiction over this action for injunctive and declaratory relief. As a result, the Court has jurisdiction only if the value of the rights at issue exceeds $5 million. Second, the Court holds that when, as here, the notice of removal pleads that the value of the rights at stake are within the Court’s jurisdiction and the petition does not plead otherwise, the party moving for remand bears the initial burden of showing that the amount pleaded is fraudulent or that a different amount is readily established, such as by statute. The Court adopts the same burden-shifting framework applied to jurisdictional challenges raised through pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for traditional summary judgment, such that the movant bears the initial burden on the pretrial motion but the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. The Court also denies a request for attorney’s fees and holds that the movant has not met its burden of proving that a venue clause in the Company Agreement applies to this action or that it binds Defendants, who are not signatories.", "claim_summary": "Fraud Misrepresentation, Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief", "jur_issues": [ "Amount-in-controversy", "Injunctive/declaratory (§25A.004(e))", "Venue / venue-selection clause", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459894", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459894/24-bc03a-0004.pdf", "source_line_range": "L583-L591", "coding_confidence": "High", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Amount-in-controversy and burden-shifting framework applied", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [ "Summary judgment" ] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 8", "year": 2024, "num": 8, "date": "December 20, 2024", "division": "11th", "judge": "Adrogué", "memOp": false, "caption": "Lone Star NGL Product Services v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Remand; Interlocutory appeal", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed before September 1, 2024, where the Parties have entered into a post-September 1, 2024 written agreement that the Court has jurisdiction of the case, and the Parties have pleaded jurisdiction under Texas Government Code Section 25A.004(d). The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” Per the request of the Parties, the Court further certifies the controlling question of law discussed herein for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d). To the extent that the Court has the authority to do so, the Court’s remand order is stayed pending the resolution of the Parties’ permissive interlocutory appeal.", "mediaId": "1459814", "op_no": 8, "date_iso": "2024-12-20", "mem_op": false, "case": "Lone Star NGL Product Services v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures", "plaintiff": "Lone Star NGL Product Services", "defendant": "EagleClaw Midstream Ventures", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement / consented removal", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Section 8 of HB 19 bars Chapter 25A application despite party agreement; permissive interlocutory appeal certified", "jurisdictional_issue": "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d)); HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge (party-consented)", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459814/24-bc11a-0004-lone-star-ngl-product-services-llc-vs-cr-pe-opinion-and-order.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed before September 1, 2024, where the Parties have entered into a post-September 1, 2024 written agreement that the Court has jurisdiction of the case, and the Parties have pleaded jurisdiction under Texas Government Code Section 25A.004(d). The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.” Per the request of the Parties, the Court further certifies the controlling question of law discussed herein for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d). To the extent that the Court has the authority to do so, the Court’s remand order is stayed pending the resolution of the Parties’ permissive interlocutory appeal.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "Qualified-transaction (§25A.004(d))", "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459814", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459814/24-bc11a-0004-lone-star-ngl-product-services-llc-vs-cr-pe-opinion-and-order.pdf", "source_line_range": "L592-L596", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement despite post-filing agreement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [ "Interlocutory appeal" ] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 7", "year": 2024, "num": 7, "date": "December 16, 2024", "division": "1st", "judge": "Bouressa", "memOp": true, "caption": "Seter v. Westdale Asset Management", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.", "mediaId": "1459792", "op_no": 7, "date_iso": "2024-12-16", "mem_op": true, "case": "Seter v. Westdale Asset Management", "plaintiff": "Seter", "defendant": "Westdale Asset Management", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Pre-Sept. 1 case cannot be in TBC", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459792/24-bc01a-0006-christopher-seter-v-wesdale-asset-management-ltd-jgb-ventures-i-ltd-joseph.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "media_id": "1459792", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459792/24-bc01a-0006-christopher-seter-v-wesdale-asset-management-ltd-jgb-ventures-i-ltd-joseph.pdf", "source_line_range": "L597-L601", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 filing", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 6", "year": 2024, "num": 6, "date": "November 26, 2024", "division": "11th", "judge": "Dorfman", "memOp": false, "caption": "XTO Energy Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Company", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Remand/removability", "ruling": "Doctrinal / explanatory opinion", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion addresses the removability to the Business Court of cases filed before September 1, 2024, when removal has been contested. The Court concludes that., in such circumstances, Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits Business Court authority to act to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.", "mediaId": "1459724", "op_no": 6, "date_iso": "2024-11-26", "mem_op": false, "case": "XTO Energy Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Company", "plaintiff": "XTO Energy", "defendant": "Houston Pipe Line Company", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Section 8 of HB 19 limits TBC authority to cases filed on/after Sept. 1, 2024", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459724/24-bc11b-0008-xto-energy-v-houston-pipeline-company-opinion-and-order.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion addresses the removability to the Business Court of cases filed before September 1, 2024, when removal has been contested. The Court concludes that., in such circumstances, Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits Business Court authority to act to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459724", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459724/24-bc11b-0008-xto-energy-v-houston-pipeline-company-opinion-and-order.pdf", "source_line_range": "L602-L606", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand/removability", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 5", "year": 2024, "num": 5, "date": "November 7, 2024", "division": "4th", "judge": "Barnard", "memOp": false, "caption": "Winans v. Berry", "industry": "Technology / IP", "posture": "Other / merits", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "In this case, Plaintiff attempted to remove a 2022 suit to the Texas Business Court, and Defendant challenged the court’s authority to hear this case. Construing the plain language of H.B. 19, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case because Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code and its removal procedure applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024", "mediaId": "1459665", "op_no": 5, "date_iso": "2024-11-07", "mem_op": false, "case": "Winans v. Berry", "plaintiff": "Winans", "defendant": "Berry", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement (2022)", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Chapter 25A and removal procedure applies to cases commenced on/after Sept. 1, 2024", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459665/24-b-c04a-0002-morningstar-winans-vs-luke-berry-opinion-and-order.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "In this case, Plaintiff attempted to remove a 2022 suit to the Texas Business Court, and Defendant challenged the court’s authority to hear this case. Construing the plain language of H.B. 19, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case because Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code and its removal procedure applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459665", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459665/24-b-c04a-0002-morningstar-winans-vs-luke-berry-opinion-and-order.pdf", "source_line_range": "L607-L611", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Other / merits", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 4", "year": 2024, "num": 4, "date": "November 7, 2024", "division": "4th", "judge": "Sharp", "memOp": false, "caption": "Jorrie v. AL Global Services", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "This opinion concludes the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case commenced before September 1, 2024. This 2018 suit was removed to the Business Court from district court under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code. Though all parties consented to the removal, the court examined its jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded the legislation creating the Business Court of Texas does not grant the court jurisdiction, requiring remand.", "mediaId": "1459994", "op_no": 4, "date_iso": "2024-11-07", "mem_op": false, "case": "Jorrie v. AL Global Services", "plaintiff": "Jorrie", "defendant": "AL Global Services", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement (2018)", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Sua sponte remand despite party consent", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Sua sponte jurisdictional review", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459994/24-bc04b-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "This opinion concludes the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case commenced before September 1, 2024. This 2018 suit was removed to the Business Court from district court under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code. Though all parties consented to the removal, the court examined its jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded the legislation creating the Business Court of Texas does not grant the court jurisdiction, requiring remand.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1459994", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459994/24-bc04b-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L612-L615", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 3", "year": 2024, "num": 3, "date": "November 6, 2024", "division": "8th", "judge": "Bullard", "memOp": false, "caption": "TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Sanctions motion", "ruling": "Other", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "After construing H.B. 19—the legislation implementing Chapter 25A— the Court concludes that removal is not permitted for cases filed before September 1, 2024. The Court also concludes that sanctions are not warranted.", "mediaId": "1460044", "op_no": 3, "date_iso": "2024-11-06", "mem_op": false, "case": "TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services", "plaintiff": "TEMA Oil and Gas Company", "defendant": "ETC Field Services", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Removal not permitted for pre-Sept. 1 cases; no sanctions", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar; Removal mechanics", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Removal challenge; Sanctions", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "REMANDED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460044/24-bc08b-0001.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "After construing H.B. 19—the legislation implementing Chapter 25A— the Court concludes that removal is not permitted for cases filed before September 1, 2024. The Court also concludes that sanctions are not warranted.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "Removal mechanics" ], "media_id": "1460044", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460044/24-bc08b-0001.pdf", "source_line_range": "L616-L620", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remanded", "canonical_disposition_code": "REMANDED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remanded", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 commencement; sanctions denied", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Sanctions motion", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 2", "year": 2024, "num": 2, "date": "October 31, 2024", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Synergy Global Outsourcing v. Hinduja Global Solutions", "industry": "General commercial", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court", "mediaId": "1459451", "op_no": 2, "date_iso": "2024-10-31", "mem_op": false, "case": "Synergy Global Outsourcing v. Hinduja Global Solutions", "plaintiff": "Synergy Global Outsourcing", "defendant": "Hinduja Global Solutions", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Pre-Sept. 1 case remanded to district court", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459451/24-bc01b-0007-synergy-global-v-hinduja-global-opinion.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "media_id": "1459451", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459451/24-bc01b-0007-synergy-global-v-hinduja-global-opinion.pdf", "source_line_range": "L621-L625", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 filing", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] }, { "citation": "2024 Tex. Bus. 1", "year": 2024, "num": 1, "date": "October 30, 2024", "division": "1st", "judge": "Whitehill", "memOp": false, "caption": "Energy Transfer v. Culberson Midstream", "industry": "Energy / Oil & Gas", "posture": "Remand", "ruling": "Granted (movant prevailed)", "jurIssues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "claimSummary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "claims": [], "summary": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.", "mediaId": "1459452", "op_no": 1, "date_iso": "2024-10-30", "mem_op": false, "case": "Energy Transfer v. Culberson Midstream", "plaintiff": "Energy Transfer", "defendant": "Culberson Midstream", "subject_matter": "Pre-September 1 commencement", "key_doctrinal_issue": "Pre-Sept. 1 case remanded — the first TBC opinion", "jurisdictional_issue": "HB 19 commencement-date bar", "primary_claim_family": "Jurisdiction / Remand", "procedural_posture": "Motion to remand", "result": "REMANDED", "disposition_code": "GRANTED", "disposition_text": null, "pdf_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459452/24-bc01b-0005-energy-transfer-lp-v-culberson-midstream-opinion.pdf", "pdf_fetch_pending": true, "pdf_fetch_failed": false, "page_count": null, "paragraph_count": null, "motion_type": null, "moving_party": null, "fees_awarded_usd": null, "fees_basis": null, "damages_awarded_usd": null, "damages_type": null, "amount_in_controversy_usd": null, "sanctions_amount_usd": null, "statutes_cited": null, "cases_cited_count": null, "top_3_cases_cited": null, "removed_from_county": null, "commencement_date": null, "pre_september_1_2024_commencement": null, "causes_of_action": "Breach of contract", "claim_flags": { "Breach of contract": null, "Breach of fiduciary duty": null, "Derivative action": null, "Class action": null, "Fraud / misrepresentation": null, "Fraudulent concealment": null, "Trade secret (TUTSA)": null, "Tortious interference": null, "Defamation / disparagement": null, "Non-compete / non-solicit": null, "Declaratory judgment": null, "Injunctive relief": null, "Specific performance": null, "Indemnification / advancement": null, "Aiding and abetting / knowing participation": null, "Veil-piercing / alter ego": null, "Joint venture / partnership": null, "Winding-up / dissolution": null, "Buy-sell / drag-along": null, "Minority oppression": null, "Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit": null, "Conversion": null, "Accounting / books and records": null, "Legal malpractice": null, "Force majeure": null, "Trust / fiduciary (Title 9)": null, "Securities / purchase agreement": null, "Negligence / negligence per se": null }, "summary_verbatim": "Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.", "claim_summary": "(no specific claim — pure jurisdictional / procedural opinion)", "jur_issues": [ "HB 19 commencement-date bar" ], "media_id": "1459452", "source_url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459452/24-bc01b-0005-energy-transfer-lp-v-culberson-midstream-opinion.pdf", "source_line_range": "L626-L630", "coding_confidence": "Medium", "canonical_outcome": "Remand granted", "canonical_disposition_code": "GRANTED", "grok_breach_of_contract": false, "grok_breach_of_fiduciary_duty": false, "grok_derivative": false, "grok_class_action": false, "grok_other_causes_of_action": null, "grok_outcome": "Remand granted", "grok_key_factors": "Pre-Sept. 1, 2024 filing", "claims_adjudicated": [], "disposition_code_source": "BACKFILLED_FROM_CANONICAL_2026_05_23", "posture_primary": "Remand", "posture_secondary": [] } ], "generatedAt": "2026-05-23T00:00:00Z", "source": "https://smucgi.org/research/texas-business-court/dashboard/", "n": 95, "master_matrix_version": "v1.0", "backfill_complete": 36, "backfill_pending": 59, "aggregate_fees_awarded_usd": 25772.5, "aggregate_damages_awarded_usd": 0, "version": "v1.2.3", "parent_version": "v1.2.1", "reviewer_returns": { "R1_Claude": "63 findings; SEV-1 to SEV-6 applied", "R2_Perplexity": "v1.1 patch adopted (19 page_count fixes + 3 flag mut-ex)", "R3_Grok": "Full 95-opinion CoA coding now authoritative" }, "claims_adjudicated_counts": { "breach_of_contract": 37, "breach_of_fiduciary_duty": 7, "derivative_action": 2, "class_action": 0 }, "disposition_distribution": { "GRANTED": 25, "DENIED": 25, "ORDER_ENTERED": 18, "GRANTED_IN_PART": 12, "AWARD_CONFIRMED": 1, "DISMISSED": 1, "REMANDED": 13 }, "_redteam_2026_05_23_changes": [ "F-SEV-05: Fixed malformed pdf_url for 2025 Tex. Bus. 10 (25-bc-bc03a-0001.pdf -> 25-bc03a-0001.pdf); flagged for Shane verification", "F-SEV-03: Backfilled disposition_code from canonical_disposition_code (was null on 64/95); reconciled 12 conflicts", "F-SEV-07: Canonicalized OWL Assetco I and Safelease captions", "F-HIGH-09: Added posture_primary + posture_secondary fields to support cleaner heatmap categorization" ] }