stream of commerce doctrine in Texas

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2010Tex. 1994) (concluding that “[t]he fact that some of the merchandise which [the defendant] brings into Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is ultimately destined for the United States” is insufficient for general jurisdiction because a stream of commerce analysis is improper in the general jurisdiction context); see also Spir Star , 310 S.W.3d at 874 (noting that “stream-of-commerce analysis is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” (quotation omitted)).

2010Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo S.A. de C.V., 879 F.Supp. 699, 701 (S.D.Tex.1994) (concluding that “[t]he fact that some of the merchandise which [the defendant] brings into Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is ultimately destined for the United States” is insufficient for general jurisdiction because a stream of commerce analysis is improper in the general jurisdiction context); see also Spir Star, 310 S.W.3d at 874 (noting that “stream-of-commerce analysis is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” (

2005However, the controlling issue under the stream of commerce doctrine is the "reasonable expectation" that the product will be sold in Texas, not the "right of control.” Kawasaki Steel, 699 S.W.2d at 201 .

2005The court noted the controlling issue under the stream-of-commerce doctrine is the “reasonable expectation” that the product will be sold in Texas, not the “right of control.” Id. (citing Kawasaki, 699 S.W.2d at 201).

2022“The stream-of-commerce doctrine is a useful tool to conceptualize minimum contacts in product liability cases.” Id.

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2006See, e.g., Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 419-20 (5th Cir.1993) (following World-Wide Volkswagen and rejecting Asahi ); see also Luv n' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Ruston and stating that the Fifth Circuit has consistently followed its adoption of World-Wide Volkswagen and rejection of Asahi ).

1995Moreover, in the recent case of Ruston Gas Turbines v. Donaldson , 9 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 1993), the court found that an out-of-state subcontractor who shipped component parts directly to the contractor's Texas customer had sufficient minimum contacts to allow the court to exercise specific jurisdiction. (3) Accordingly, we will follow the stream of commerce analysis in determining whether minimum contacts exist.

2020Neither case involved jurisdictional allegations against an entity that targeted its activities toward all states, or even multiple states. 3 The Fifth Circuit has explained that “[c]ircuit courts interpreting McIntyre have concluded that under Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion ‘furnished the narrowest grounds for the decision and controls.’ . . . [T]he narrowest ground, as expressed in Justice Breyer’s concurrence, is that the law remains the same after McIntyre, and that circuit courts may continue to attempt to reconcile the Supreme Court’

2020Neither case involved jurisdictional allegations against an entity that targeted its activities toward all states, or even multiple states. 3 The Fifth Circuit has explained that “[c]ircuit courts interpreting McIntyre have concluded that under Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion ‘furnished the narrowest grounds for the decision and controls.’ . . . [T]he narrowest ground, as expressed in Justice Breyer’s concurrence, is that the law remains the same after McIntyre, and that circuit courts may continue to attempt to reconcile the Supreme Court’

2018See State ex rel Ford Motor Company v. McGraw, 788 S.E.2d 319, 342-43 (W.Va. 2016)( “We decline to use the place of sale as a per se rule to defeat specific jurisdiction.”).

2018See State ex rel Ford Motor Company v. McGraw, 788 S.E.2d 319, 342-43 (W.Va. 2016)( “We decline to use the place of sale as a per se rule to defeat specific jurisdiction.”).

2006See, e.g., Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 419-20 (5th Cir.1993) (following WorldWide Volkswagen and rejecting Asahi); see also Luv n' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Ruston and stating that the Fifth Circuit has consistently followed its adoption of World-Wide Volkswagen and rejection of Asahi).

2006See, e.g., Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 419-20 (5th Cir.1993) (following World-Wide Volkswagen and rejecting Asahi ); see also Luv n' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Ruston and stating that the Fifth Circuit has consistently followed its adoption of World-Wide Volkswagen and rejection of Asahi ).

2005In CMMC v. Salinas , the Texas Supreme Court declined to "take sides in the Asahi debate," but observed that Texas cases "suggest[] that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas." 929 S.W.2d 435, 439-40 (Tex. 1996); see Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten , No. 04-0016, 2005 Tex. LEXIS 420, at *19-20 (May 27, 2005) (citing CMMC , 929 S.W.2d at 440 ) ("we have noted that our cases appear to follow the 'additional conduct' standard" proposed by Justice O'Connor's plurality in Asahi ); see also Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson , 21 S.

2005In CMMC v. Salinas, the Texas Supreme Court declined to “take sides in the Asahi debate,” but observed that Texas cases “suggest[] that we would follow Justice O’Connor’s formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.” 929 S.W.2d 435, 439-40 (Tex. 1996); see Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, No. 04- 0016, 2005 Tex. LEXIS 420, at *19-20 (May 27, 2005) (citing CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 440 ) (“we have noted that our cases appear to follow the ‘additional conduct’ standard” proposed by Justice O’Connor’s plurality in Asahi); see also Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d

1995E.g. , Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. , 35 F.3d 939, 945 (4th Cir. 1994) (adopting Justice O'Connor's position that additional conduct purposefully directed at forum state is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction); Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. , 993 F.2d 528, 542 (6th Cir. 1993) (same).

1995E.g., Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939, 945 (4th Cir.1994) (adopting Justice O’Connor’s position that additional conduct purposefully directed at forum state is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction); Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods., 993 F.2d 528, 542 (6th Cir.1993) (same).

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

1995In Gulf Consolidated Services v. Corinth Pipeworks, S.A. , 898 F.2d 1071, 1073 (5th Cir. 1990), the Fifth Circuit extended the application of the stream of commerce doctrine to contract disputes.

1995In Gulf Consolidated Services v. Corinth Pipeworks, S.A., 898 F.2d 1071, 1073 (5th Cir.1990), the Fifth Circuit extended the application of the stream of commerce doctrine to contract disputes.

1995E.g. , Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. , 35 F.3d 939, 945 (4th Cir. 1994) (adopting Justice O'Connor's position that additional conduct purposefully directed at forum state is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction); Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. , 993 F.2d 528, 542 (6th Cir. 1993) (same).

1995E.g., Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939, 945 (4th Cir.1994) (adopting Justice O’Connor’s position that additional conduct purposefully directed at forum state is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction); Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods., 993 F.2d 528, 542 (6th Cir.1993) (same).

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

1995We decline to follow Brabeau because, unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit and our supreme court have embraced Justice Brennan’s position that no additional conduct is required if the defendant is aware that its product is being marketed in the forum state. 2 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly adopted the stream of commerce doctrine: “Because the Court’s splintered view of minimum contacts in Asahi provides no clear guidance on this issue, we continue to gauge [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas by the stream of commerce standard as described in WorldWide Volkswagen and embraced in this

2012Texas courts generally follow the stream-of-commerce analysis in Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi Metal Industrial Co. v. Superior Court of California , 480 U.S. 102 , 107 S. Ct. 1026 (1987).

2012Texas courts generally follow the stream-of-commerce analysis in Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi Metal Industrial Co. v. Superior Court of California , 480 U.S. 102 , 107 S. Ct. 1026 (1987).

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (2005) 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 789 43 CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.1996) (“If anything, Keen suggests that we would follow Justice O'Connor's formulation of the stream-of-commerce rule in Texas.”). 44 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 , 595–96 (Tex.1996). 45 CMMC, 929 S.W.2d at 439 . 46 127 S.W.3d at 96 . 47 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 475 n. 18, 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). 48 World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 , 100 S.Ct

2007Later, however, in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, a plurality of the Court held that the placement of a product into the stream of commerce, absent additional conduct indicating an intent to serve the market of the forum state, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. 480 U.S. 102, 112 , 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1032 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987); CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 595 .

2025Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 75 (1938).17 B I can think of no better illustration of the problem than the aspect of personal jurisdiction at issue here: the stream-of-commerce doctrine.

2025As many courts and scholars have explained, the existing fairness-based approach is unmoored from our Constitution’s text and history.24 In particular, nothing in the text or history of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides an objective basis for determining when an exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporate defendant would be “unfair”—for example, whether that clause requires the stream of commerce to have a “plus.” Instead, 24 See, e.g., Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co., 137 F.4th 309, 323 (5th Cir. 2025) (Oldham, J.) (“The doctrine does not come from constit

2021Michelin N. Am., Inc. v. De Santiago, 584 S.W.3d 114 , 128 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2018, no pet.) (noting our obligation to follow Texas Supreme Court’s articulation of the stream of commerce test); Texas Dep’t of Family and Protective Services v. Parra, 503 S.W.3d 646, 657-58 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2016, no pet.) (noting that it is not our function to abrogate or modify established Texas Supreme Court precedent as that function lies solely with that court).

2010Co. v. Transportes de Nuevo Laredo S.A. de C.V., 879 F.Supp. 699, 701 (S.D.Tex.1994) (concluding that “[t]he fact that some of the merchandise which [the defendant] brings into Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is ultimately destined for the United States” is insufficient for general jurisdiction because a stream of commerce analysis is improper in the general jurisdiction context); see also Spir Star, 310 S.W.3d at 874 (noting that “stream-of-commerce analysis is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” (

2006See Kern v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc ., 867 F.Supp. 525, 536 (S.D.