Texas

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.

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).

The Dallas Court of Appeals sitting en banc recently denied review of a panel decision that reversed an $8.8 million dollar asbestos verdict and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of an employer in Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Dickson. The Court found missing any evidence that the employer knew in the 1960s that the millboards at issue contained asbestos. Because there was no evidence the employer had actual, subjective knowledge of any asbestos exposure risk, the employer could not be held liable under Texas law.

The First District recently held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over a Texas-based company because of that company’s national advertising scheme and small repeat customer base in Illinois. In Schaefer v. Synergy Flight Center, et al., No. 1-18-1779, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant RAM Aircraft, L.P., negligently overhauled, repaired, and tested an aircraft’s left engine and other parts, and that the negligent repair caused the aircraft to crash in Illinois, killing its seven passengers. RAM was a Texas-based limited partnership that predominately made its income by overhauling aircraft engines. RAM performed its work in Texas and had no office or property in Illinois. RAM did, however, advertise in a nationally distributed magazine and Illinois customers historically accounted for 1-2.5% of its revenues.  The particular engine in question was overhauled by RAM in Texas, who shipped it to a company in Indiana, who then shipped it to an Illinois flight center for installation.

The proverbial hacksaw inside a prisoner’s birthday cake has been supplanted by a new technological trend for bringing contraband into the jailhouse – Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”). As early as 2015, a fight broke out at the Mansfield Correctional Institution in Ohio when a drone carrying tobacco, marijuana, and heroin crashed into a yard inside the facility. That same year, a drone trafficking hacksaw blades, a cellphone, and Super Glue crashed into a maximum security prison in Oklahoma. Similar plots have been attempted in more than a dozen states nationwide, leading states like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas to ban drone flights over correctional facilities. Perhaps to save us from another pre-emption fight over UAS operational restrictions, the federal government is now following suit.

March 14, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editors: Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden
New Developments
Precluding a Second Bite at the Apple; Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment on Basis of Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
By Tierra Jones

In the interest of justice and courtroom efficiency, res judicata aims to prevent parties

…

On February 23, 2018, in In re Silver, the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief and vacated the trial court’s order compelling production of emails between an inventor and his non-lawyer registered patent agent. In re Silver, Case No. 16-0682, 2018 WL 1022470 (Tex. February 23, 2018). The court held that a client’s communications with a patent agent, made to facilitate the agent’s provision of authorized legal services to the client, are privileged under Texas Rule of Evidence 503 (attorney-client privilege). The ruling marked the first time a state high court weighed in on the issue.

July 14, 2017
New Developments
Rats! Eco-Friendly Soy-Based Insulation Could Spell Trouble Down the Road
By Sarah Rashid

A new “eco-friendly” biodegradable material used to insulate wiring in newer cars could make for trouble — and lawsuits — down the road for car manufacturers. This insulation is made from soybeans, making it more environmentally friendly

…