We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
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.
Opinions by Judge Sharp (3)
Partial Settlement Does Not Divest Business Court of Jurisdiction Once Properly Invoked
In Ornelas v. Herrera, the Business Court's Fourth Division held that agreed dismissal of claims against most defendants did not reduce the jurisdictional amount in controversy, which is fixed at the suit's commencement based on the plaintiff's pleadings. The court applied Bland ISD v. Blue to conclude that absent proof of fraud or sham pleading, the allegations in the pleadings control the jurisdictional determination.
Rule 91a Motion Denied Where Partnership Dissolution Pleadings Satisfy Notice Standard
In Hensarling v. Carmichael, the Business Court's Fourth Division held it had subject-matter jurisdiction over a partnership dissolution claim because the plaintiff sought dissolution of the entire partnership, satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement even without seeking monetary damages. The court also addressed whether a nonsuit filed two days before the hearing prevented it from ruling on defendants' pending Rule 91a motion to dismiss.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective-Date Cases Despite Party Consent
In Jorrie v. AL Global Services, 2024 Tex. Bus. 4, the Business Court sua sponte remanded a 2018 commercial dispute removed from district court with full party consent, holding that Chapter 25A does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction over cases commenced before the Business Court's September 1, 2024 effective date. The decision establishes that the Business Court's statutory jurisdiction operates prospectively only, regardless of party agreement to transfer.