green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
116.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…must accept as true th uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in its favor all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits and other documentation.
at p. 215
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Delta Electronics, Inc. v. Vicor Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Delta’s first argument thus seems to rest on a straightforward application of the three Cray factors—in that Vicor’s (not FPS’s) employees, for after the completion of venue discovery); but see Alpine View, 205 F.3d at 221 (finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court in dismissing claim without affording plaintiff jurisdictional discovery because “no amount of information on . . . contacts with Texas would strengthen [the plaintiff’s] showing of specific jurisdiction”). example, Hurn, work at the Cedar Park Address.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Elevacity U.S., LLC v. Schweda
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
must accept as true th uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in its favor all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits and other documentation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tellez v. Madrigal
if an alternate forum that is both available and adequate exists , the court must next assess whether, considering relevant private interest and public interest factors, dismissal is warranted.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Merriman v. Crompton Corp.
we have specifically rejected a party's reliance on the stream-of-commerce theory to support asserting general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Karl Albert v. Allied Glove Corporation
a court facing a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens must first assess whether an alternate forum is both available and adequate
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Purdue Research v. Sanofi-Synthelabo
we have specifically rejected a party's reliance on the stream-of- commerce theory to support asserting general jurisdiction 19 over a nonresident defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Doe v. American Airlines
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
only a district court can make a magistrate's decision final, and therefore appealable.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pamela Carter v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., et al.
This requirement of minimum contacts ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Found.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gail Link v. Richard Lee, et al.
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco A.B., 205 F. 3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Complete Logistical Services, LLC v. Paul Yaeger
Minimum contacts “Minimum contacts” can be established through specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.18 Specific personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant has purposely directed its activities, or availed itself of the privileges of conducting its activities, toward the forum state and the controversy arises out of or is related to those activities.19 General personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the forum state, regardless of whether such activity is related to the plaintiff’s cause of action.20 As Defendant is…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William Michael DeWitt v. Trinity Logistics, Inc., et. al.
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Tex. Civ.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nouri Edward Hakim v. Alan A Cohen
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The court’s discretion—and the liberal thrust of the Rules of Civil Procedure—extends to jurisdictional discovery.1 Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 , 351 n.13 (1978) (“[W]here issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue, discovery is available to ascertain the facts bearing on such issues.”); Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 276 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that jurisdictional discovery decisions “will not be disturbed” absent a “clear abuse”) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir. 2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Natalie Henderson v. Gloria Woods, ET AL.
Monkton, 768 F.3d at 434 ; Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir. 2000); Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Natasha Dixon v. Volunteers of America South Central Louisiana, Inc., et al.
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco A.B., 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shannon McGuire and Susan McGuire v. B. Braun Medical Inc., B. Braun Interventional Systems, Inc., B. Braun Medical
This restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Bearry, 818 F. 2d at 375 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Walltopia Adventure USA, LLC
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yarbrough v. The United States Space Force
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yarbrough v. General B. Chance Saltzman
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
M.B. Barge Company v. Braemar Shipbroking USA Inc.
Monkton, 768 F.3d at 434 ; Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir. 2000); Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fagan v. Nexo Capital, Inc.
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Xlink Resource Group, LLC v. Expo Petroleum Oil and Gas, LLC
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thermco Systems Ltd. v. Expert Semiconductor Technology, Inc.
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D6 LLC v. Victal
Absent an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff must “present sufficient facts as to make out only a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery, Jr. - Adams-II v. Anderson
This restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Bearry, 818 F.2d at 375 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Unnikrishnan v. IOT.nxt Americas USA, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Unnikrishnan v. IOT.nxt Americas USA, Inc.
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Electro-Mechanical Recertifiers, L.L.C. v. Samsung E&C America, Inc.
Co., 517 F.3d 235 , 241–42 (5th Cir. 2008); Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). 67 Rec.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tauriac v. Staffing the Universe, LLC
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Courts facing multiple grounds for dismissal should consider “the complexity of subject-matter jurisdiction issues raised by the case, as well as concerns of federalism, and of judicial economy and restraint in determining whether to dismiss claims due to a lack of personal jurisdiction before considering challenges to its subject-matter jurisdiction.” See id. (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 213 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Farina
This restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Bearry, 818 F.2d at 375 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick v. Makine
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery, Jr. - Adams-II v. Anderson
This restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Bearry, 818 F.2d at 375 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
M. W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Anderson
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 867 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco A.B., 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvarado v. Austrofood S.A.S.
This restriction on the minimum contacts inquiry ensures that the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum state such that it could “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 ); see also Bearry, 818 F.2d at 375 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Aegon USA
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
S R P Environmental L L C v. Cove House Condominium Association
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wong v. Federal Trade Commission
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana L L C v. Gulf States Cold Storage Co
Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Marsh Collection, LLC v. Hunterman's LLC
Mar. 14, 2011). 28 Id. 29 Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 30 Luv N’ Care Ltd. v. Insta–Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). 31 Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco, A.B., 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). 32 Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Hamilton Cty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Withers v. City of Aberdeen
In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court must accept the plaintiffs “uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in its favor all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits and other documentation.” Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Withers v. City of Aberdeen
In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court must accept the plaintiffs “uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in its favor all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits and other documentation.” Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Holloman v. Shelman-Goetsch
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Inzinna v. Chinnici
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Ford Motor Company
See id.; Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GEM Southwest LLC v. Dowa International Corporation
See id.; Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000). 4Because the court is dismissing this action as to these defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, it need not reach Gem’s request for leave to perfect service on Topy Enterprises, or the contentions of Topy Enterprises, Topy America, and Dowa International that Gem has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baldone v. Moore
STAT. § 13:3201. 8 Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG, 688 F.2d 214, 220 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). 9 Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 ). 10 Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). conducting its activities, toward the forum state and the controversy arises out of or is related to those activities.11 General personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the forum state, re…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cormier v. Scribe Media, LLC
However, courts have recognized that contacts of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent corporation in cases where the subsidiary is the alter ego of the parent or where “corporations are not operated as separate entities, but integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose.” Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419, 428 (5th Cir. 2005); Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 218 (5th Cir. 2000).1 To impute jurisdictional contacts from one company to another on the basis of an alter-ego relationship, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “the parent so d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mobolutions, LLC v. Geon Performance Solutions, LLC
“To satisfy that burden, the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction must ‘present sufficient facts as to make out only a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction,’ if a court rules on a motion without an evidentiary hearing.” Id. (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. STRIDE Community Health Center
(2×)
“To satisfy that burden, the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction must ‘present sufficient facts as to make out only a prima facie case supporting jurisdiction,’ if a court rules on a motion without an evidentiary hearing.” Id. (quoting Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JPAY LLC v. Houston
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the court must accept the plaintiff's “uncontroverted allegations, and resolve in its favor all conflicts.” Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (Sth Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20879
Summary Calendar
ALPINE VIEW COMPANY LIMITED; BJORN HANSEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ATLAS COPCO A.B.; ATLAS COPCO ROBBINS;
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS INCORPORATED;
AND ATLAS COPCO COMPTEC INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
H-95-CV-4477)
August 20, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge.
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20879
Summary Calendar
ALPINE VIEW COMPANY LIMITED; BJORN HANSEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ATLAS COPCO A.B.; ATLAS COPCO ROBBINS;
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS INCORPORATED;
AND ATLAS COPCO COMPTEC INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
H-95-CV-4477)
August 20, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:*
During the pendency of this appeal, our Court sitting en banc decided Marathon Oil Co. v. A.G. Ruhrgas, No. 96-20361, 1998 WL 329842 (5th Cir. June 22, 1998) (en banc). The procedural circumstances involved in this appeal are very similar to those involved in Marathon Oil and our decision herein is controlled by
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. that en banc decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the following orders entered in the court below:
a. Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of July 31, 1996 by the magistrate judge which recommended (i) that defendant Atlas Copco AB’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (docket entry 22) be granted; (ii) that defendant Atlas Copco Robbins’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (docket entry 26) be granted; and (iii) that plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case (docket entry 16) be denied as moot.
b. The Order of the district court entered on October 1, 1996 adopting the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of July 31, 1996 as described in the foregoing subparagraph;
c. The Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of August 1, 1996 by the magistrate judge which recommended that the motions of defendants Atlas Copco Comptec, Inc. and Atlas Copco Compressors, Inc. to dismiss for forum non conveniens (docket entries 4 and 9) be granted; and
d. The Order of the district court entered under date of October 1, 1996 adopting the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of August 1, 1996 as described in the foregoing subparagraph.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be remanded to the district court for a determination as to whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction of the cause of action as removed from the state court.
[*2][*3]