Marialyn Barnard
How Judge Barnard rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barnard
Marialyn Barnard joined the Texas Business Court’s Fourth Division in September 2024 after appointment by Governor Greg Abbott. She previously served as a judge of the 73rd Judicial District Court in Bexar County and as a justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals. She earned degrees from Texas A&M University-Commerce and St. Mary’s University School of Law.
Judge Barnard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barnard, 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.
How Judge Barnard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the JWB Trust of 2007 dispute, Barnard remanded a case that had begun before September 1, 2024, concluding that later amendments did not restart the action for Business Court jurisdiction.
“the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.”
In Unimacts Global, LLC v. Ayr Energy Inc., Judge Barnard found a knowing-participation claim adequately pleaded because the company could be charged with knowledge its agents gained while conducting its business.
“Defendant may be charged with the knowledge its agents acquired while conducting Defendant's business. Plaintiffs, therefore, adequately pled the knowledge element of their knowing-participation claim.”
Procedural preferences
In ET Gathering & Processing LLC v. Tellurian Production LLC, Judge Barnard found that nonsuiting a district-court case after discovery and refiling with a higher damages claim did not, by itself, show fraud or a sham to defeat jurisdiction.
“merely filing in district court and then engaging in discovery to later determine one should nonsuit and refile in this court in and of itself is not evidence of fraud or a sham.”
In Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures, Barnard treated the asserted contractual damages cap as a merits question and found that it did not defeat the amount pleaded for Business Court jurisdiction at that stage.
“that argument concerns the enforceability and scope of the Parties' contractual agreements rather than whether Pradera SFR has pled damages sufficient to invoke this court's jurisdiction.”
In a trade secret discovery dispute, she restricted additional counsel’s access to protected materials after one attorney had already disclosed such material to a company decision maker and the litigant had other counsel of record.
“shared with Plaintiffs’ corporate decision makers is not theoretical.”
Cautions
In Barrett v. Barrett, Judge Barnard held that every claim in the removed trust dispute arose out of Title 9 of the Property Code and remanded the case because the parties had not agreed to supplemental jurisdiction.
“And here, even if presuming the claims fall within our supplemental jurisdiction, the parties do not agree with the claims proceeding in this court as required by subsection (f).”
In Winans v. Berry, Judge Barnard remanded an action filed before September 1, 2024, finding that the Business Court’s removal procedure did not reach the earlier case.
“because this case commenced prior to September 1, 2024, Chapter 25A and its removal procedure do not apply to it, and this court has no authority to remove this case from the district court to this court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, because this case commenced prior to September 1, 2024, Chapter 25A and its removal procedure do not apply to it, and this court has no authority to remove this case from the district court to this court. ... In accordance with this opinion, the court grants Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion for Remand and orders the case remanded to the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.”
“Accordingly, based on the pleadings before the court, the court denies Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction.”
“Based on the foregoing, the court remands this case to the Bexar County Probate Court No. 1. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“After consideration, the court sustains Plaintiff's objection and orders the case remanded to the statutory probate court. ... Based on the foregoing, the court remands this case to Bexar County Probate Court No. 1.”
In post-bench-trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law following a five-day trial from January 12 through 16, 2026, Barnard decided how to divide settlement proceeds and litigation-expense reimbursement from an earlier trade-secret suit between affiliated oil-and-gas companies. She found that the parties co-owned the trade secrets and ordered the settlement funds split equally, with the defendant reimbursing half of the plaintiff's pre-2019 litigation costs. This is a signed, substantive bench-trial opinion rather than a party-motion ruling.
“Accordingly, based on the pleadings before the court, the court denies Defendant's plea.”
“Defendants' 91a Motion to Dismiss this cause of action based on no basis in law or fact is therefore DENIED. It is so Ordered that Defendants' 91a Motion to Dismiss is Denied.”
“Defendant Mark L. Smith’s Plea to the Jurisdiction is DENIED as to Count One (in part), Count Two, and Count Three.”
“Defendant Mark L. Smith’s Verified Plea in Abatement is DENIED.”
“Defendant Mark L. Smith’s alternative Motion to Transfer is DENIED.”
The opinion explains the court's earlier discovery ruling restricting access to confidential and attorneys' eyes only trade secret material. The parties submitted letter briefs about access under an existing protective order, but the opinion identifies no separately filed motion to classify.
“For the reasons set out above, the court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment as follows:”
“Accordingly, MD Anderson’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.”
Draft for Judge Barnard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barnard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barnard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace