Legal Opinion
Bridgestone Corp. v. Lopez
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Decided May 6, 2004No. 13-02-526-CVPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Opinion by Justice YÁÑEZ.
In a single issue, appellant Bridgestone Corporation (“Bridgestone”) contends the trial court erred in denying its special appearance. See Tex. Crv. PRAC. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Tex.R.App. P. 28.1. We affirm.
Background
This interlocutory appeal arises out of a single-vehicle automobile crash which occurred in Mexico on August 3, 2000. Ap-pellees (plaintiffs below), 1 filed suit against Bridgestone, General Motors Corporation (“GM”), and Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, L.L.C. (“Firestone”), 2 contending that defects in the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- BMC Software Belgium, NV v. MarchandTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
- American Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. ColemanTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2001
- El Puerto De Liverpool, S.A. De C v. v. Servi Mundo Llantero S.A. De C.V., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Formosa Plastics Corp., USA v. Kajima International, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2006
- SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Investments (USA) Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2005
- Carlson Manufacturing, Inc. v. Smith, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2005
- North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co. v. Fedex Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2012
- Commercial Union v. CBC TEMPORARY STAFFINGLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.