Jerry D. Bullard
How Judge Bullard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He is unpersuaded by a party's claimed ignorance of obvious commercial facts, especially where the parties themselves are sophisticated commercial actors party to large-dollar contracts -- he will credit the concrete, verifiable value of the underlying deal over a litigant's after-the-fact claim it did not know what was at stake.
“It is wholly unreasonable that Defendants—parties to a contract cumulatively netting them over $100 million—now claim they were unaware the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million.”
In personal-jurisdiction disputes over a revenue-sharing agreement, he rejects a defendant's attempt to minimize its Texas contacts by pointing to a low percentage share of overall revenue, focusing instead on the absolute dollar significance of the Texas-linked business -- seen in the American Airlines v. JetBlue Northeast Alliance dispute.
“in a mega-revenue and profit-sharing agreement like the MGIA, even 2% of all revenue is a substantial profit and the financial benefit derived specifically from its Texas operations must not be negated nor ignored.”
Procedural preferences
When a case presents both a jurisdictional challenge and an alternative merits or timeliness argument, he resolves jurisdiction first and does not reach the alternative argument once jurisdiction is dispositive -- a recurring sequencing rule across his removal/remand opinions.
“If the Court lacks jurisdiction, an action is simply not removable, irrespective of the timeliness of its removal... Thus, the Court should address jurisdiction first and, if necessary, timeliness second.”
On amount-in-controversy and other jurisdictional-fact disputes, once the movant's evidence establishes a threshold showing, he shifts the burden to the opposing party to produce actual controverting evidence -- attorney argument or counsel's characterization of the record is not enough to meet that burden.
“counsel's interpretation of Black Mountain's allegations is not evidence establishing that Black Mountain seeks more than $10 million in relief.”
Cautions
He watches for plaintiffs repackaging a single barred claim (such as a legal-malpractice claim the Business Court categorically cannot hear) into multiple differently-labeled causes of action to route around a jurisdictional bar, and applies the anti-fracturing rule to dismiss all of them together when they share the same underlying gravamen.
“A plaintiff cannot simply 'repackage[] allegations under the banner of additional claims' to avoid the application of the anti-fracturing rule ... the gravamen of the claims is Crain's dissatisfaction with the quality of Goldthwaite's professional services.”
He distinguishes a losing legal position from a sanctionable one: he will firmly reject an argument on the merits (e.g., an improper removal) while still declining to impose sanctions absent rigorous, hearing-tested evidence of bad faith -- being wrong is not, by itself, being frivolous.
“Even though the Court has determined that ETC's Removal Notice was legally impermissible, ETC's argument that a pre-September 1, 2024 case could be removed was not per se groundless or frivolous.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court entered its TBC Remand Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.”
“the Vanguard Companies' Amended Special Appearance must be GRANTED, and the claims against the Vanguard Companies must be DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“it is ORDERED that Northern's Plea is GRANTED and Crain's derivative claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that JetBlue's Special Appearance is DENIED.”
“Northern is entitled to specific performance under the express terms of the Buy-Sell Option clause.”
“for the reasons stated in the Order issued January 29, 2026, the Court will not consider the Amis Declaration, as it does not comport with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(f) and lacks any probative value.”
“It is further ORDERED that Northern is entitled to an attorney's fees award of $25,772.50.”
“the Court finds Octane's Motion to Strike should be granted and finds the Fielder Affidavit should be stricken from the record.”
“the Court finds the MSJ should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Slant Operating's Motion is GRANTED and Octane's Motion is DENIED.”
“Octane's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Establish Jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. Any additional relief requested in the motion is DENIED.”
“Octane's Plea to the Jurisdiction is hereby SUSTAINED. It is further ORDERED that Slant Holdings' claims against Octane are DISMISSED.”
“Octane's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Slant Operating and Slant Holdings' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.”
“Based on the Court's foregoing determination that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the merits of Goldthwaite's Amended 91a Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Amended 91a Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Legal Malpractice (Professional Negligence) claim against Goldthwaite is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the remaining fractured malpractice-based claims against Goldthwaite are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court entered its July 25, 2025 order granting OWL's Motion.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion.”
“Construing the allegations liberally in favor of jurisdiction and looking to Plaintiffs' intent leads the Court to conclude that the allegations are sufficient to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.”
Put Judge Bullard's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bullard actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bullard's own signed orders and cites them.