[
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 3",
    "case_name": "Osmose Utilities Doo v. Navarro County Electric Cooperative",
    "division": "1st",
    "date": "2025-01-31",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court held Chapter 25A allows removal of entire suits only, not individual claims, and that the suit's 2022 commencement date fell before H.B. 19 took effect, requiring remand for lack of jurisdiction."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 4",
    "case_name": "Sebastian v. Durant",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "2025-02-04",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "holding": "A second division reached the same entire-suit-only construction of Chapter 25A within days of the first, holding that an action commences at the original petition's filing and that the statute does not permit removing individual claims out of an otherwise-ineligible suit."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 9",
    "case_name": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation",
    "division": "1st",
    "date": "2025-03-10",
    "matter_type": "summary_judgment",
    "disposition": "granted_in_part",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Granted partial summary judgment holding the general partner met its modified fiduciary duties in connection with the Callon sale, while denying judgment on the proceeds-allocation and waterfall-distribution claims, which proceeded to further litigation."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 26",
    "case_name": "Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation (Acconcia and Blackstone Inc. special appearances)",
    "division": "1st",
    "date": "2025-07-16",
    "matter_type": "special_appearance_pj",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "holding": "In the same underlying dispute, the court granted the special appearances of Acconcia and Blackstone Inc., dismissing claims against both for lack of personal jurisdiction. A rare Business Court personal-jurisdiction win for the moving parties, and the sharpest data point the docket has produced yet on how the court actually applies the minimum-contacts standard."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 24",
    "case_name": "Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian",
    "division": "8th",
    "date": "2025-06-30",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 81,
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand a produced-water dispute, holding the pleaded amount in controversy did not clear the $10 million jurisdictional threshold then in effect. One of the small number of 2025 opinions arising from an energy-sector dispute, and the anchor case for the firm's own computed finding that roughly one in ten coded 2025 Business Court opinions touches the energy sector by name."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 30",
    "case_name": "Owl AssetCo I v. EOG Resources (first remand)",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "2025-08-11",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 63,
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court granted remand, holding the amount in controversy did not reach the then-applicable $10 million threshold and that House Bill 40's jurisdictional expansion, not yet effective, did not apply retroactively to a pending motion."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 47",
    "case_name": "Owl AssetCo I v. EOG Resources (second removal, remand denied)",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "2025-12-05",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "denied",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 63,
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "The same parties returned four months later. After House Bill 40 took effect September 1, 2025 and lowered the general jurisdictional threshold to $5 million, the defendant removed a second time. The court denied the plaintiff's second remand motion, holding the post-H.B.-40 removal was timely and proper under the reduced threshold. Read together, the two Owl AssetCo opinions are the clearest before-and-after pair the 2025 docket produced on House Bill 40's practical effect."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 39",
    "case_name": "Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "2025-10-14",
    "matter_type": "summary_judgment",
    "disposition": "granted_in_part",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "holding": "Resolving four cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court ruled that the contract's force-majeure and reasonable-efforts provisions did not obligate Marathon to buy spot-market replacement gas or execute a contract buyback during the February 2021 delivery shortfall caused by Winter Storm Uri. A merits-stage contract-interpretation ruling, not a jurisdictional one, on facts that trace back to the storm that did more than any single event to put Texas energy-contract disputes in front of state courts in the first place."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 43",
    "case_name": "Cadence McShane Construction Co. v. Ryan BB Blockhouse Creek",
    "division": "3d",
    "date": "2025-11-03",
    "matter_type": "jurisdiction_threshold",
    "disposition": "denied",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 103,
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Denied the plea to the jurisdiction, holding that third-party claims against subcontractors arose from a qualified transaction meeting the $5 million threshold even though the claims themselves were not the original basis for removal. A construction-dispute opinion that reads as a template for how the court treats derivative third-party claims riding on an otherwise-qualifying transaction."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 51",
    "case_name": "Ornelas v. Herrera",
    "division": "4th",
    "date": "2025-12-18",
    "matter_type": "jurisdiction_threshold",
    "disposition": "rendered",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": "",
    "selection_basis": "qualitative",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court held that a partial settlement with other defendants did not divest the court of jurisdiction over the remaining claims, deferring a ruling on the remaining defendant's fiduciary-duty status to a later stage. Included here mainly for what it represents: the Fourth Division decided only four coded matters in 2025, and this procedural ruling is the division's clearest 2025 data point."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 45",
    "case_name": "City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "",
    "matter_type": "summary_judgment",
    "disposition": "granted_in_part",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 284,
    "selection_basis": "computed",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "holding": "Granted partial summary judgment holding City Choice terminated the purchase agreement and is estopped from seeking specific performance. The slowest-resolved 2025 matter in the coded dataset: 284 days from motion to ruling."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 53",
    "case_name": "Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating",
    "division": "8th",
    "date": "",
    "matter_type": "summary_judgment",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 278,
    "selection_basis": "computed",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court granted the plaintiff's partial summary judgment on liability for breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement, denying the defendant's competing motion. 278 days from motion to ruling, the second-slowest of 2025."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 25",
    "case_name": "Kassam v. Dosani",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "",
    "matter_type": "jurisdiction_threshold",
    "disposition": "denied",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 152,
    "selection_basis": "computed",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Court denied the defendants' motion to sever and plea to the jurisdiction, finding the claims adequately alleged an amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional threshold. 152 days from motion to ruling."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 8",
    "case_name": "",
    "division": "11th",
    "date": "",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 105,
    "selection_basis": "computed",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "holding": "Granted remand of a partnership accounting and fiduciary-duty dispute, finding the Business Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. 105 days from motion to ruling. The official opinion PDF could not be retrieved in machine-readable form; this entry is coded from a secondary source and the parties are not confirmed to a standard this page is willing to publish by name."
  },
  {
    "citation": "2025 Tex. Bus. 7",
    "case_name": "",
    "division": "3d",
    "date": "",
    "matter_type": "remand_removal",
    "disposition": "granted",
    "days_motion_to_ruling": 104,
    "selection_basis": "computed",
    "confidence": "high",
    "holding": "Granted remand; the underlying suit commenced before House Bill 19's September 1, 2024 effective date, so the court lacked jurisdiction regardless of subject matter. 104 days from motion to ruling. The opinion itself does not recite the parties' names in a form independently confirmed for this page."
  }
]