We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Brian Stagner
Judge · Seat 8B
Texas Business Court · Eighth Business Court Division (Fort Worth)
Biography
Judge Brian Stagner serves on the Texas Business Court for the Eighth Division, located in Fort Worth, Texas. Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Stagner practiced law for 27 years at Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, where he served as partner and co-chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. During this time, he handled complex business litigation in more than 40 states, representing clients on both sides of the docket. His practice included corporate governance disputes, unfair business practices, e-commerce, insurance coverage, taxation, consumer class actions, and intellectual property matters. Judge Stagner has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America® annually since 2010. In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Stagner is an adjunct professor at Texas Christian University, where he teaches Business Law. He is a former Barrister of the American Inns of Court and is a sustaining Life Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, as well as a Fellow of the Tarrant County Bar Foundation. Judge Stagner earned his law degree, summa cum laude, from Texas Tech University School of Law, where he served on the Law Review and was named to the Order of the Coif. He also holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in Management from Angelo State University. Judge Stagner and his wife, Amy, have been happily married for 30 years and are proud parents of two daughters, Claire and Katie.
Opinions by Judge Stagner (1)
Statute of Frauds Bars Enforcement of Real Estate Contract Where Legal Description Deferred to Future Survey
In Village Crossing v. West Creek Investments, the Texas Business Court granted summary judgment for the seller, holding that a purchase agreement for approximately 11.56 acres was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it failed to adequately describe the property boundaries and impermissibly deferred the legal description to a future survey commissioned by the buyer. The court rejected the buyer's attempt to enforce the contract for only the frontage tract at the blended price, finding that the agreement contemplated a single integrated transaction combining interior and frontage acreage.