Legal Opinion · Dissent

Laykin v. McFall

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)

Decided April 28, 1992No. 07-91-0276-CVPublished

1DissentPoff, Justice

I find Sol W. Laykin (Sol) is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Texas courts under Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 17.042(2) (Vernon 1986), and I further find the exercise of this jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

Under the general Texas long-arm statute, section 17.042, Jane Livermore (Jane) *272had the initial burden of making a prima facie case by pleading sufficient allegations to bring Sol within the provisions of the statute. McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.1965). Jane…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Calder v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Schlobohm v. SchapiroTexas Supreme Court · 1990

14 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