Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hanson v. Dencklagreen2 sentences2023Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 2023Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”). | 2 | 2 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 2023Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”). | 1 | 8 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.green1 sentence2023Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.green2 sentences2023Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”). 2023These benefits and protections include “the enforcement of contracts, the defense of property, [and] the resulting formation of effective markets.” Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1029 . | 1 | 1 |
M & F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co.green1 sentence2023Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878, 886 (Tex. 2017). “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 ; see also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
Walden v. Fioregreen1 sentence2016See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (“[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.”). 16 Recently, the Supreme Court further explained that “[a] forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1123 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.