Legislative & Judicial Updates

Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), codified at Section 23.303 of the Texas Government Code, requires Texas courts to follow a strict schedule for hearings and rulings on motions for summary judgment. Effective September 1, 2025, SB 293 aims to streamline judicial efficiency and provide Texas litigants with more predictability. Relatedly, Texas House Bill 16 (HB 16), effective December 4, 2025, modifies the timelines for judicial action initially set by SB 293 in two ways:

1) by increasing the time courts have to consider motions for summary judgment from 45 days after the motion is filed to 60 days; and

2) by allowing courts up to 90 days after a summary judgment motion is filed to consider it, but only under very limited circumstances. Motions for summary judgment filed between September 1, 2025 and December 3, 2025 are subject to the deadlines originally introduced by SB 293.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged injuries arising out of a 2017 car accident. The case centered on alleged defects in a 1992 sports car’s occupant restraint system and roof design. The analysis from the Superior Court, while non-precedential, offers crucial insights into Pennsylvania’s product liability law particularly with regard to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark Tincher opinion.

Themis, Greek goddess of justice, holding scales in front of a courthouse

The proper allocation of the burden of proof during closing arguments is a recurring issue in civil litigation. On August 19, 2025, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial in Harrell v. City of Chicago, offering important guidance regarding improper burden shifting during closing arguments. 2025 IL App (1st) 240119, ¶ 83. The ruling makes clear that while parties may highlight unrebutted evidence, only defendants may highlight when an expert was not retained to rebut or prove a specific element of the case.

On December 2, 2025, Bayer announced that the Solicitor General of the United States,
D. John Sauer1 has recommended the United States Supreme Court take up the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell2 appeal on the Roundup product litigation. The Supreme Court previously invited the Solicitor General to weigh in on the views of the United States.3 In response, Mr. Sauer’s office authored their own petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing with Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”)’s arguments that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)4 preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims concerning Roundup.

In a significant development concerning Minnesota’s environmental regulations, an administrative court rejected the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed rule on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting and associated fees.1 This decision, issued on
August 29, 2025, highlights procedural and substantive criteria considered in the MPCA’s rulemaking process.2

Introduction

On October 6, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Syngenta Crop, LLC v. Nemeth, passing on an opportunity to clarify its prior decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern and address whether Pennsylvania’s “consent to jurisdiction” statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The result: for now, out-of-state corporations registered to do business in Pennsylvania remain subject to general personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, regardless of the extent of their in-state operations.

Background – Public Health and the Need for Employer Accountability

Senate Bill 20, also called the Silicosis Training, Outreach, and Prevention (STOP) Act, was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2025.1 Senator Caroline Menjivar is on the forefront of this battle to avoid preventable injuries and illnesses by enforcing proper safety measures at fabrication shops.

T

The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.”  Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).

On August 15, 2025, Governor Pritzker signed Senate Bill 328 into law, effective immediately. The bill makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, namely changing Illinois from a specific jurisdiction state to a general jurisdiction state for actions that allege injury or illness resulting from exposure to a toxic substance.