TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Stacy Sharp

Hon. Stacy Sharp

Judge · Seat 4B

Texas Business Court · Fourth Business Court Division (San Antonio)

Biography

Stacy Rogers Sharp sits in the Texas Business Court’s Fourth Division, which covers 22 counties in South Texas extending from the border south of Laredo to coastal Aransas County. Judge Sharp’s background in commercial litigation derives from her private practice as an appellate lawyer and trial-litigation consultant in civil suits that included contractual breaches, unfair competition, banking disputes, corporate-governance and fiduciary litigation, energy matters, employment law, and intellectual-property matters. She has long served on the faculty of the University of Texas School of Law, having most recently taught advanced writing for litigation. Her publications and papers cover the topics of fraudulent transfers, trade secrets, oil and gas litigation, business torts, rhetorical techniques for handling counterarguments, and the Texas Civil Participation Act. She is former president of the Federal Bar Association’s Austin Chapter and sits on its San Antonio Chapter’s executive board. A 2006 graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, she was a Chancellor, a Teaching Quizmaster, and member of the Texas Law Review. She began her appellate practice at Baker Botts LLP after clerking in the Western District of Texas for the Honorable Lee Yeakel. Before practicing law, she attended Vanderbilt University and served as a math and science teacher. More recently, she served her community on the Board of Trustees for Alamo Heights Independent School District and on the State Bar's Child Abuse & Neglect Committee. After years of serving as a foster parent, she now enjoys volunteering with the National Charity League and Young Men's Service League.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Sharp (1)

Constructive Trust ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 66 Motion to Dismiss September 24, 2026

Rule 91a Does Not Require Dismissal of Fraud-by-Nondisclosure, Tortious Interference, or Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Where Pleadings Allege Sufficient Facts

In Hinds v. Sandman Offshore, the Texas Business Court denied Rule 91a motions to dismiss fraud-by-nondisclosure, tortious-interference, civil-conspiracy, and knowing-participation claims arising from alleged self-dealing by a co-manager who recommended his own drilling company without disclosure. The court held that inaction constitutes adequate reliance for fraud claims and declined to hold that established Texas law precludes a viable aiding-and-abetting claim under Rule 91a's dismissal standard.

Mem. Op. Oil & Gas Rule 91a Notice Pleading Aiding and Abetting Fraud by Nondisclosure Opinion PDF ↓