Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury
The two Dallas sports franchises filed a joint motion with the 15th Court of Appeals to vacate judgment and remand the case to the Texas Business Court for dismissal. The Mavericks sued the Stars to enforce the terms of partnership contracts the teams signed nearly 25 years ago.
Mark Cuban's request to withdraw his Rule 202 petition was granted by Texas Business Court Judge Bill Whitehill without prejudice Monday. The case originated in the Dallas County District Court and was removed to the Texas Business Court last week.
There’s no sign of a summer slowdown in Texas Business Court. The Court has delivered 20 opinions since our last monthly installment, and thus far, summer’s defining feature has been breadth over blockbuster. All five divisions and nine different judges pitched in. The First Division led the way with almost half the total publication volume. July supplanted May as the Court’s busiest month yet, but it was also its most doctrinally varied, one in which the Court behaved less like a specialty commercial docket and more like a full-service court majoring in business disputes.
Three themes tie the summer’s substantive opinions together thus far.
As the Texas Business Court prepares to enter its third year, legal experts say one case really stands out as an exemplar for the new commercial litigation system’s potential: Dallas Mavericks v. Dallas Stars.
Texas business litigation expert Ben Barnes, in an interview with The Texas Lawbook, said the business court judge’s trial order in the fight between Dallas’ sports franchises shows the court’s ability to compress complex, high-stakes commercial disputes when the circumstances demand it.
Area Development Intermediate filed notice of removal to the Texas Business Court Friday evening, delaying Mark Cuban’s petition for a pre-suit deposition. Cuban’s filing claims the pre-suit deposition of the ADI’s corporate representative is aimed at uncovering details about how the Mavericks struck a deal to buy the Valley View Mall property. Cuban, who maintains an ownership interest in the American Airlines Center, is seeking information regarding how the deal may impact his contractual rights.
In the second quarter of 2026, the Texas Business Court continued to build on the progress of its first two years of operation, issuing both jurisdictional and procedural rulings and a growing body of substantive decisions. The larger story of the quarter, however, was the Court’s merits opinions, particularly in cases dealing with contract interpretation. The quarter also produced several high-profile disputes and significant awards.
By all accounts, the Texas Business Court has met or exceeded expectations. Business court judges have moved their growing dockets quickly and efficiently, and they have not been as unfriendly to plaintiffs as many lawyers feared. Yet some practitioners see specific areas that have room for improvement.
Just Wednesday morning, all 10 judges were reappointed for their second two-year terms, which most lawyers applauded.
A lingering question was answered Wednesday when Gov. Greg Abbott announced in a news release that he is reappointing all 10 sitting Texas Business Court judges to two-year terms. The announcement comes about a month before the current terms are set to expire Sept. 1.
Texas Instruments turned to the Texas Business Court last month to sue a former employee and his new employer, GlobalFoundries, for allegedly stealing trade secrets. The Texas Lawbook was in Fort Worth Monday morning for the temporary injunction hearing, but the courtroom was sealed shortly after Vartabedian Katz Hester & Haynes partner Marc Katz began his opening statements for Texas Instruments.
The Texas Business Court’s second year is off to a faster start than its first, and the expansion of its jurisdictional reach through House Bill 40 appears to be contributing to the uptick in its caseload. This analysis takes a look at the numbers, with a focus on the Eleventh and Third Divisions.
In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Fort Worth regional office gets a final judgment against a Mansfield man accused in a $2.9 million fraud, and a company that offers an array of services to fuel retailers turns to the Texas Business Court in pursuit of $21 million in damages.
Earlier this year, a financial executive opened an AI chatbot to think through his legal exposure before calling his lawyers, then watched a federal judge hand all 31 of those documents to prosecutors.
The lesson looked clear. A Texas court has now complicated that lesson. Same conduct, two courts, opposite results. For Texas litigators, the gap between the two is worth understanding.
© Copyright 2026 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.
