We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Scott Brister
Chief Justice · Place 1
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
Biography
Chief Justice Scott Brister was appointed by Governor Abbott as the first Chief Justice of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals effective September 1, 2024. He previously served on four other trial and appellate courts in Texas for 20 years: 6 years on the Texas Supreme Court (2003–09), 3 years as a Justice and Chief Justice of the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals in Houston (2001–03), and 11 years as Presiding Judge of the 234th District Court in Harris County (1989–2000). During his years of judicial service, he presided in 454 jury trials to verdict, and authored more than 600 appellate opinions, including 122 for the Texas Supreme Court. Before returning to the bench in 2024, Chief Justice Brister was a partner at the law firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. During those years, he continued his public service as a volunteer as Chair of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance, a blue-ribbon panel of lawmakers and educators tasked with making recommendations that the Texas Legislature adopted the next year. He has also served on the Texas Bar’s Pattern Jury Charge committee on Business cases. Chief Justice Brister received his J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School in 1980, after which he served as briefing attorney for then-Chief Justice Joe Greenhill of the Texas Supreme Court. He received his undergraduate degree with highest honors from Duke University in 1977, and his high school diploma from Richfield High School in Waco, Texas. He is board-certified in civil appellate law, civil trial law, and personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He has written articles for numerous law reviews and journals, as well as opinion pieces for The Houston Chronicle, The Austin American-Stateman, The Texas Trial Lawyer, and The Harvard Law Record. Chief Justice Brister has been married to his wife Julie for 37 years. He returned to the bench in 2024 after their four daughters finished college and graduate school.
Opinions by Judge Brister (6)
Business Court Retains Authority to Reconsider Remand After Plaintiff Amends to Eliminate Jurisdictional Claims
In In re ColossusBets Limited, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to defendants challenging the Business Court's remand order after plaintiff Jerry Reed amended his lottery-rigging claims to eliminate all allegations implicating the court's statutory jurisdiction over internal affairs and governance. The court framed the central issue as whether removal to the Business Court operates as a "one-way door" that prevents reconsideration even when a plaintiff eliminates all jurisdictional predicates through amended pleadings.
Fifteenth Court Holds 'Action' Means Entire Lawsuit, Not Individual Claims, for Business Court Removal Eligibility
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to relators seeking to remove derivative claims filed in December 2024 from a divorce action commenced in July 2024, holding that the term "civil action" in the Business Court Act's effective-date provision refers to the entire lawsuit—not individual claims added later—and thus the Act does not apply to any part of a case filed before September 1, 2024. The decision reinforces In re ETC Field Services and rejects arguments that later-added commercial claims could be severed and removed as a separate "action."
Amended Petition Adding Publicly Traded Party After September 1, 2024 Does Not 'Commence' New Action for Business Court Jurisdiction
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to Kimco entities seeking to keep their case in the Business Court after being added as defendants via third-amended petition in September 2024, holding that a civil action 'commences' when originally filed, not when an amended petition adds a publicly traded company. The court rejected relators' argument that adding a publicly traded defendant after the September 1, 2024 effective date triggers Business Court jurisdiction, reaffirming its holding in In re ETC Field Services that removal or amendment does not commence a new civil action.
Business Court Remand Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable, Fifteenth Court Holds in Second Jurisdictional Dismissal
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals dismissed Synergy Global Outsourcing's appeal from a Business Court Division 1B order remanding the case back to district court, holding that remand orders are neither final judgments nor subject to interlocutory appeal under any statute. The ruling, which follows the court's same-day decision in ETC Field Services, forecloses direct appeals from Business Court determinations that a case does not qualify for the specialized tribunal.
Mandamus Denied in Challenge to Business Court's Remand of Pre-Effective-Date Case
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied Synergy Global Outsourcing's mandamus petition challenging the Business Court's remand order, leaving in place the trial court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over a case filed before the September 1, 2024 effective date. The brief memorandum opinion relies entirely on the court's reasoning in a companion case decided the same day, In re ETC Field Services, LLC.
Removal Statute Does Not Apply to Pre-Effective Date Cases: Business Court Lacked Authority to Accept 2017-Filed Action
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief in In re ETC Field Services, holding that the Business Court properly remanded a 2017-filed breach of contract action because HB 19's removal provisions apply only to "civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024"—and removal transfers rather than commences an action. The court rejected ETC's attempt to remove a seven-year-old case just months before trial, establishing that the Legislature's choice of "commenced" forecloses removal of cases filed in district court before the Business Court's creation.