Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1994No. D-1903Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHightower, Justice

For the last forty years it has been well settled that the venue statute which allows a foreign corporation to be sued “in any county in which the company may have an agency or representative” requires that such person or entity (1) actually conduct business in the county of suit in a more or less permanent form, (2) possess broad powers from the defendant corporation and reside in the county of suit, (3) possess powers which are discretionary and relate to commercial or business transactions concerning the corporate affairs of the defendant and whose duties and obligations are not merely…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Milligan v. Southern Express, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Rouse v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  4. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Mapco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1978
  5. General Motors Corporation v. BradyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972

13 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