Trevino test in Texas

2016“For specific-jurisdiction purposes, purposeful availment has no jurisdictional relevance unless the defendant’s liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579 .

2016“For specific-jurisdiction purposes, purposeful availment has no jurisdictional relevance unless the defendant’s liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579 .

2016“Arising from or related to” Because we are addressing the issue of specific—as opposed to general—jurisdiction, we must also determine whether Trevino’s claim “arises from or is related to [Petitioners’] purposeful activities in the state.” Id. at 150 .

2016“Arising from or related to” Because we are addressing the issue of specific — as opposed to general— jurisdiction, we must also determine whether Trevino’s claim “arises from or is related to [Petitioners’] purposeful activities in the state.” Id. at 150 .

2019The letter set a date for a hearing on attorney’s fees and sanctions as requested in the motions and stated that “[e]ntry of orders in the above ruling is likewise scheduled for June 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.” 2 Although a trial court letter is generally not the type of document that constitutes a judgment or order, see Goff v. Tuchsherer, 627 S.W.2d 397 , 398–99 (Tex. 1982), a letter may be construed to be an order if: (1) it describes the decision with certainty as to parties and effect; (2) it requires no further action to memorialize the ruling; (3) it contains the name and cause number of the

2015Although the Court of Criminal Appeals has said that neither party shoulders a burden to prove probative value or prejudice with regard to extraneous offense evidence, See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389 ; Castillo v. State, 865 S.W.2d 89, 92-93 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.), the trial court should not be held to have committed error in its Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 determinations before the nature of the evidence in question has been fully presented to it.

2014Trevino, 100 S.W.3d at 233-35 ; see Wooten, 400 S.W.3d at 608 (summarizing the two competing theories).

2014Id. at 998 .

2005Trevino , 701 F.2d at 404 .

2005Trevino , 701 F.2d at 404 .

2005In Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. , 380 U.S. 255, 256-57 , 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1965), the United States Supreme Court explained how the test, previously applied in National Labor Relations Board decisions, had been used in determining the relevant employer for jurisdictional purposes: Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction, there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of t

2005In Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. , 380 U.S. 255, 256-57 , 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1965), the United States Supreme Court explained how the test, previously applied in National Labor Relations Board decisions, had been used in determining the relevant employer for jurisdictional purposes: Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction, there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of t

2000Marquess & Co., 226 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1950, writ refd n.r.e.), in which the court held that even when a contract for services is illegal, a school district can be held hable under an implied contract when it has received benefits of the services and common honesty and fair dealing require the district to pay just compensation for those services.