Legal Opinion
Docutel Corp. v. SA MATRA
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided January 25, 1979No. Civ. A. CA-3-77-1362-DPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT M. HILL, District Judge.
Came on for consideration defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively, to stay plaintiff’s action. Defendants S.A. Matra (“Matra”) and Matra Informatique (“Informatique”) contend that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over them because the plaintiff Docutel Corporation (“Docutel”) can not reach them through Texas’ long-arm statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann., art. 2031b, made applicable by F.R. Civ.P. 4(d)(7) and 4(e). Defendants further contend that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over them would violate the Due…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Koenig v. International Brotherhood of BoilermakersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Hebert v. Kerr-McGee Corp.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1985
- Rockwell International Corp. v. KND Corp.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1979
- Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1980
- Maurice Pierce & Associates, Inc. v. Computerage, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.