William G. "Bill" Whitehill
How Judge Whitehill rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Whitehill
William G. Whitehill has served as a judge of the Texas Business Court’s First Division since its opening in 2024 and was reappointed in 2026. He previously served as a justice of the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals. He earned degrees from the University of Texas at Austin and Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.
Judge Whitehill's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Whitehill, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judge Whitehill’s Guidelines ↗
- Proposed Protective Order ↗
- Form ESI Order ↗
- Form Pretrial Order Template (jury) ↗
- Form Pretrial Order Template (non-jury) ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Emails to Judge Whitehill should name the case number and first named parties in the subject, go through the court manager and staff lawyer, and include all counsel.
“All emails to the court should include the case number and the first plaintiff and the first defendant in the subject line. The parties must create a single email list that they and the court will use when communicating by email. All emails involving the court must be through the Court Manager and the Staff Lawyer and include all counsel of record.”
Filing
Email the court a redline comparing an amended pleading with the prior pleading.
“When filing an amended pleading, parties should email the court a redline comparison between the amended and previously pending pleading.”
Discovery
Counsel must confer in good faith on a discovery dispute before seeking an informal court conference.
“When a disagreement arises, counsel with authority to agree to solutions must actually communicate with each other in good faith to resolve their dispute before involving judicial resources.”
How Judge Whitehill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank, Whitehill enforced a master indenture's punitive-damages limitation against a trustee claim, concluding that the Texas Trust Code did not bar the provision.
“the court concludes that the Trust Code, including § 114.007, does not bar enforcing the Master Indenture § 8.01(e)'s liability limitation clause.”
In Thompson v. Anchor Capital, Whitehill concluded that a promissory note was not a security under the Texas Securities Act. Applying the Reves factors, he found that collateral, a personal guaranty, and contractual representations reduced the note's investment risk.
“Having multiple risk-reducing measures in place strongly suggests the Note is not a TSA security.”
In Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream LLC, Judge Whitehill applied the enabling act’s filing-date limit as written and remanded a suit filed before the Business Court acquired jurisdiction.
“This court presumes the legislature wrote § 8 the way it did for a reason and cannot ignore its plain language.”
Procedural preferences
On designating a responsible third party under Chapter 33, he reads 'harm' broadly, more like 'injury' than 'breach', so a party need not have violated the same legal duty as the named defendant to be designated; it is enough that its own conduct contributed to some injury the plaintiff is suing over, even where the named defendant's own liability theory is different (e.g., fiduciary breach) from the third party's alleged wrongdoing (e.g., contract default).
“the Legislature appears to have intended 'harm' to be somewhat synonymous with 'injury' and 'damage'”
In Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, Judge Whitehill treated the defendants’ answer in an earlier, closely related Texas suit as consent to litigate that dispute in the state and rejected their later special appearance.
“The court concludes that it does because the focus is on the defendants' consent to litigate the dispute in the state—not a particular court within the state.”
When multiple defendants are jointly removing a case, he does not require every defendant to separately file or formally join a removal notice to benefit from it: one defendant's timely notice removes the whole case for all defendants under the statute as written.
“the Government Code does not require other defendants to file separate removal notices or to formally join in or consent to a removal notice to benefit from the removal”
Cautions
A sophisticated investor plaintiff cannot rely on the target company's own in-house or outside counsel's assurances to excuse its own duty to investigate red flags: that counsel represents the entity, not the investor, so accrual and the discovery rule run against the investor once public, disinterested-third-party information puts it on inquiry notice, regardless of what company counsel told it.
“as a sophisticated entity, the court holds Riverside responsible for knowing that '[a] lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the entity' not the individual shareholders. ... the court concludes that Riverside's reliance on True Health's counsel did not absolve it of an independent duty to investigate.”
In Energy Transfer v. Culberson Midstream, Whitehill remanded a suit filed in April 2022 because the Business Court's enabling act did not give it authority over suits filed before September 1, 2024.
“the court grants that motion because plaintiffs filed this suit on April 8, 2022, but this court does not have authority over cases filed before September 1, 2024.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the court is defendants' motion to remand this case. The court grants that motion because plaintiffs filed this suit on April 8, 2022, but this court does not have authority over cases filed before September 1, 2024.”
“Before the court is defendants' motion to remand this case. The court grants that motion because plaintiff filed this suit on December 30, 2019, but this court does not have authority over cases filed before September 1, 2024.”
“The court concludes that it does because the focus is on the defendants' consent to litigate the dispute in the state—not a particular court within the state.”
“Accordingly, the court denies movants' motion regarding causes of action asserted against them based on claims that (i) the Callon sale proceeds were not properly distributed according to the TAPA waterfall and (ii) the consideration was not fairly allocated between PEP and BPP. Otherwise, the court grants movants' motion and dismisses the causes of action against them as described above.”
“For these reasons, the court signed its March 21, 2025, order denying FME's Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction.”
“For these reasons, the court signed its April 22, 2025, order concluding at this stage that the amount in controversy exceeds $10 million and this action arises out of a qualified transaction.”
“Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice PEOFs' causes of action against Doyle and the Blackstone Defendants.”
“For these reasons, the court previously granted Acconcia and Blackstone's special appearances on April 28, 2025.”
“For the above reasons, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“For these reasons, the court granted Talati's special appearances on October 16, 2025.”
“The court heard oral argument on and denied the first motion because (i) the Government Code does not require other defendants to file separate removal notices or to formally join in or consent to a removal notice to benefit from the removal and (ii) the court has independent original jurisdiction over plaintiffs' fraud causes of action.”
“The court denied the second motion without argument because § 25A.004(b)'s amount in controversy requirement applies to the case as a whole, including counterclaims.”
“In sum, as a matter of law the record negated every instance of a lack of good faith (that is, bad faith) PEOFs alleged, and PEOFs failed to adduce evidence of other facts constituting a lack of good faith. So, on March 10, 2025, the court granted in part the MSJ and on April 10, 2025, the court denied PEOFs' Motion for Reconsideration for the reasons described in this opinion.”
Draft for Judge Whitehill with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Whitehill, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Whitehill's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace