Jerry D. Bullard
How Judge Bullard rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bullard
Jerry D. Bullard joined the Texas Business Court’s Eighth Division in September 2024 after appointment by Governor Greg Abbott. Before joining the bench, he spent more than three decades in civil trial and appellate practice in North Texas. He earned degrees from Baylor University and the University of Texas School of Law.
Judge Bullard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bullard, 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-Specific Procedures for Judge Bullard ↗
- Initial Case Status Report ↗
- Proposed Agreed Protective Order ↗
- Proposed Joint Pretrial Order ↗
- Proposed Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email a proposed order in editable Word format for every motion, with the case number and motion title in the subject.
“All motions require a proposed order in Microsoft Word format (not .pdf) and must be emailed to [email protected], with the case number and the title of the motion in the subject line.”
Filing
Deliver courtesy copies of dispositive motions, responses, replies, and appendices within three business days after filing.
“Courtesy copies of all dispositive motions, responses, replies, and appendices thereto must be delivered to the Court within 3 business days of the filing date.”
Filing
Submissions longer than ten pages must have a table of contents and a table of authorities.
“Written submissions longer than ten pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities.”
How Judge Bullard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In DrinkPAK, LLC v. PRIII/Crow Building C, LP, Judge Bullard rejected the defendants’ claim that they were unaware the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, citing a contract that had yielded them more than $100 million.
“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 American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways, Bullard rejected JetBlue's attempt to discount its Texas contacts by citing the small percentage of overall revenue. He found that even two percent represented a substantial benefit under the agreement.
“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
In G-Force Associates v. Bloecher, Bullard addressed whether the Business Court had jurisdiction before considering whether removal was timely, because a case outside its jurisdiction could not be removed there.
“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.”
In Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian, Bullard found that counsel's interpretation of the complaint did not itself establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $10 million.
“counsel's interpretation of Black Mountain's allegations is not evidence establishing that Black Mountain seeks more than $10 million in relief.”
Cautions
In Crain v. Northern, Bullard applied Texas's anti-fracturing rule to dismiss Crain's claims against attorney Goldthwaite without prejudice. He found that the claims arose from the same alleged professional failures as Crain's legal-malpractice claim, which the Business Court lacked jurisdiction to hear.
“Said differently, the gravamen of the claims is Crain’s dissatisfaction with the quality of Goldthwaite’s professional services.”
In TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services, LLC, Judge Bullard rejected removal of a suit filed before the Business Court’s start date but declined sanctions because the losing interpretation was not per se 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.”
Draft for Judge Bullard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bullard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bullard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace