Stacy Rogers Sharp
How Judge Sharp rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sharp
Stacy Rogers Sharp joined the Texas Business Court's Fourth Division in September 2024 after Governor Greg Abbott appointed her. She previously practiced appellate law and advised trial teams in San Antonio. She earned her law degree from the University of Texas School of Law and has taught legal writing there.
Judge Sharp's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sharp, 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 Sharp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In DK Trading & Supply v. Wink to Webster Pipeline, Rogers Sharp enforced the parties' invoice-dispute notice deadline against the challenge that its result was unfair, citing the agreed terms of their commercial contract.
“sophisticated parties have broad latitude in defining the terms of their business relationship, and courts are obliged to enforce the parties' bargain according to its terms.”
In Sebastian v. Durant, Rogers Sharp granted remand because the civil action began when the original petition was filed before the Business Court’s jurisdictional start date. She held that later-added claims did not restart the action and that the statute did not permit partial removal of individual claims.
“the entirety of a civil action commences with the filing of the original petition, regardless of when additional parties and claims are joined. ... Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code permits only the removal of an ‘action,’ and not the partial removal of individual claims within an action.”
Procedural preferences
In Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company, Rogers Sharp denied remand. She found that the petition’s allegations about misuse of confidential business information invoked the Business Court’s intellectual-property jurisdiction even without a standalone trade-secret claim.
“the defendant's removal notice, which pleaded more than five million dollars in controversy, satisfied the statutory jurisdictional threshold ... The petition's repeated allegations regarding misappropriation of sensitive business information invoked Section 25A.004(d)(4)'s jurisdictional clause, requiring that the suit relate to intellectual-property ownership or use, despite no standalone trade-secret misappropriation claim.”
In Ornelas v. Herrera, Judge Rogers Sharp held that a partial settlement did not divest the Business Court of jurisdiction over the remaining claims because the statutory amount in controversy included all joined parties’ claims.
“partial disposition of this suit could not divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining claims. The court's governing statute provides that the jurisdictional ‘amount in controversy . . . is the total amount of all joined parties' claims.’”
Cautions
In DK Trading & Supply, LLC v. Wink to Webster Pipeline LLC, Judge Rogers Sharp held that Delek could not pursue disputes over six invoices because it missed the contract’s notice deadline.
“Wink is correct that Delek cannot pursue its rights as to the oldest six disputed invoices due to failure to timely dispute them. ... the court cannot remove the conditional ‘if’ from section 8.02.”
In Hensarling v. Carmichael, Judge Rogers Sharp reached the pending Rule 91a motion because the plaintiff’s nonsuit was filed too late to prevent a merits ruling under the rule.
“Hensarling concedes her nonsuit was not filed in time to prevent the court's ruling, and Defendants decline to waive Rule 91a's timing provision. Accordingly, the court must issue a ruling on the merits of their Motion.”
In May v. INEOS USA Oil & Gas LLC, Judge Rogers Sharp excluded course-of-performance evidence offered to alter her reading of an unambiguous contract.
“courts can't consider course-of-performance evidence to interpret an unambiguous contract.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This opinion concludes the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case commenced before September 1, 2024. This 2018 suit was removed to the Business Court from district court under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code. Though all parties consented to the removal, the court examined its jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded the legislation creating the Business Court of Texas does not grant the court jurisdiction, requiring remand.”
“This opinion concludes that, under Section 8 of House Bill 19 -- the court's enabling legislation -- the entirety of a civil action commences with the filing of the original petition, regardless of when additional parties and claims are joined. Additionally, Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code permits only the removal of an ‘action,’ and not the partial removal of individual claims within an action. The court orders remand based on its lack of jurisdiction.”
“Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment arguing that a contract does not require it to pay royalty payments on ‘revenues actually received by [the defendant] for final disposal of solid waste in the sanitary landfill operated on the Property,’ where the disposal is in a part of the landfill that is not on the Property.”
“For these reasons, Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the reasons above, the court retains jurisdiction of this suit.”
“For these reasons, the court denied Plaintiff Alamo Title Company's motion to remand. ... Applying the court's jurisdictional balance-shifting framework, the court holds that the defendant's removal notice, which pleaded more than five million dollars in controversy, satisfied the statutory jurisdictional threshold where plaintiff offered no rebutting evidence.”
“the Court partially GRANTS the Motion as follows and holds that the parties' Contracts are unambiguous with respect to the issues adjudicated in this Order ... In any remaining respect other than as expressly granted in this Order, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.”
“the court ORDERS that Defendants' objections to Exhibits D through N of Plaintiffs' Motion are SUSTAINED. The court strikes these exhibits from the summary-judgment record.”
“the Terminal Service Agreement, effective September 30, 2021, grants Plaintiff Delek exclusive use of two tanks at Plains Marketing, L.P.'s crude oil terminal in Midland, Texas for the storage of up to 566,000 barrels of crude oil ... In any remaining respect other than as expressly granted in this Order, the parties' motions for summary judgment are DENIED.”
“Delek's claims for breach of contract, as those claims relate to Invoice Nos. 2022-07, 2023-01, 2023-07, 2024-01, 2024-07, and 2025-01 (Exhibits F-1 through F-6 to Wink's Partial Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment), are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Delek's motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART as described above. Delek's objections on the basis of parol evidence in paragraphs 7-14, 18-27, and 33 of Keith Legrone's declaration ... are SUSTAINED. Delek's objections to paragraphs 1-6, 15-17, and 28-32 of Legrone's declaration, along with the corresponding Exhibits B, C, F, G, and H are OVERRULED.”
“Wink's motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART as described above. Wink's objections to Figures 1-4 and the demonstratives on pages 5, 6, 9, 11, and 21-23 of Delek's Motion for Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are SUSTAINED. In all other respects, Wink's motion to strike is DENIED.”
“For these reasons, the court GRANTS Local's motion to dismiss Mclvor's counterclaims for (1) libel per se and statutory libel; and (2) tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships.”
“the court partially grants the motion for the reasons set forth below.”
“For these reasons, the court granted Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction,”
“Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' reply brief is DENIED.”
Draft for Judge Sharp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sharp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sharp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace