Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 2005No. 04-0016Published

1Dissent

Justice MEDINA, joined by Justice O’NEILL,

dissenting.

Today the Court holds that an out-of-state defendant who intentionally defrauds a Texas resident, with full knowledge that reliance and damages will occur in Texas, cannot be made to answer for its conduct in a Texas court simply because the defrauded Texan initiated the phone call. Because the assumption of jurisdiction by Texas courts in this case does not offend the due process clause, I dissent.

I

This special appearance case arises out of James Holten’s purchase of a motor home from Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. Holten, a resident…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API