Arizona defendant in Texas

7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2012 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
LeBlanc v. Kylegreen texapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex. 1982) (facts supporting allegations of defendant’s deceptive trade practices were relevant to jurisdictional inquiry); French, 94 S.W.3d at 743-44 (jurisdictional determination only requires sufficient evidence to support implied findings that suggest, but do not ultimately prove, liability). 10 (Arizona defendant’s misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3412, at 30 (Tex. App.—Austin M 2005See , e.g. , Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S.783, 789 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California's jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex. 1982) (Arizona defendant's misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3412, at 30 (Tex. App.--Austin May 5, 2005, no pet. h.) (nonresident's participation in fraudulent insurance scheme that harmed Texas consumers supporte	3	3
Siskind v. Villa Foundation for Education, Inc.green tex · 1982 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California’s jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found, for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant’s misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 2005 WL 1034092, at 8 , 2005 Tex.App. 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California's jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant's misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 440 2005 WL 1034092, at *8 , 2005 Tex.App.	3	3
Ennis v. Loiseaugreen texapp · 2005 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California’s jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found, for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant’s misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 2005 WL 1034092, at 8 , 2005 Tex.App. 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California's jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant's misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 440 2005 WL 1034092, at *8 , 2005 Tex.App.	2	3
Banfield v. Cortesgreen pacommwct · 2007 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011But see Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309 , 214 P.3d 397, 408-09 (Ariz.Ct.App.2009) (holding that plaintiffs' claims that voting machines violated two provisions (the “free and equal election" provision and the "privileges and immunities clause”) of the Arizona Constitution survived Arizona rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Banfield v. Cortes, 922 A.2d 36, 42 (Pa. *10 Commw.Ct.2007) (refusing to dismiss electors’ claims that secretary of state had illegally certified DREs). 18 .	1	1
French v. Gloriosogreen texapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex. 1982) (facts supporting allegations of defendant’s deceptive trade practices were relevant to jurisdictional inquiry); French, 94 S.W.3d at 743-44 (jurisdictional determination only requires sufficient evidence to support implied findings that suggest, but do not ultimately prove, liability). 10 (Arizona defendant’s misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3412, at *30 (Tex. App.—Austin M	1	1
Calder v. Jonesgreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California's jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant's misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 440 2005 WL 1034092, at 8 , 2005 Tex.App. 2005See, e.g., Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (tort committed in Florida that caused harm in California supported California's jurisdiction over Florida defendant); Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex.1982) (Arizona defendant's misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices that harmed Texas residents supported specific jurisdiction in Texas); Ennis v. Loiseau, No. 03-04-00748-CV, 440 2005 WL 1034092, at 8 , 2005 Tex.App.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Chavez v. Brewergreen arizctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011But see Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309 , 214 P.3d 397, 408-09 (Ariz.Ct.App.2009) (holding that plaintiffs' claims that voting machines violated two provisions (the “free and equal election" provision and the "privileges and immunities clause”) of the Arizona Constitution survived Arizona rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Banfield v. Cortes, 922 A.2d 36, 42 (Pa. 10 Commw.Ct.2007) (refusing to dismiss electors’ claims that secretary of state had illegally certified DREs). 18 . 2011But see Chavez v. Brewer, 222 Ariz. 309 , 214 P.3d 397, 408-09 (Ariz.Ct.App.2009) (holding that plaintiffs' claims that voting machines violated two provisions (the “free and equal election" provision and the "privileges and immunities clause”) of the Arizona Constitution survived Arizona rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Banfield v. Cortes, 922 A.2d 36, 42 (Pa. 10 Commw.Ct.2007) (refusing to dismiss electors’ claims that secretary of state had illegally certified DREs). 18 .	1	1

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
Strackbein v. Prewitt green tex · 1984 2 sentences 2011Because appellants, again, did not present evidence to controvert Wenk's affidavits, and because no other evidence in the record controverts Wenk's affidavits, the district court could properly grant the motion for new trial if the affidavits "set forth facts which, if true, would negate intentional or consciously indifferent conduct." Strackbein , 671 S.W.2d at 38-39 . 2011Because appellants, again, did not present evidence to controvert Wenk’s affidavits, and because no other evidence in the record controverts Wenk’s affidavits, the district court could properly grant the motion for new trial if the affidavits “set forth facts which, if true, would negate intentional or consciously indifferent conduct.” Strackbein, 671 S.W.2d at 38-39 .	2	2011–2011
Dukatt v. Dukatt green texapp · 2011 1 sentence 2012Id. 6 Relying on Marsh, the Dallas court in Dukatt also concluded that an Arizona defendant’s single telephone call to the Dallas Police Department did not demonstrate that he was amenable to specific jurisdiction. --- S.W.3d at ---, 2011 WL 2120794, at *5 .	1	2012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Ins. Code § 101.001 (3) TX § Tex. Ins. Code § 101.201 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AZ 172 (1946–2026) CA 8 (1946–2014) TX 7 (2005–2012) KS 6 (1970–2018) WA 6 (2001–2010) IL 6 (2011–2018) NV 6 (1950–2017) NM 5 (1973–2017) MI 4 (1942–1988) NY 4 (1983–2012) HI 3 (1981–2004) WY 3 (1991–2015) UT 2 (2004–2006) FL 2 (2014–2016) DE 2 (1994–1995) MA 2 (1987–2006) MT 2 (1978–1980) AK 2 (1992–2023) SD 2 (2012–2016) OR 2 (2001–2026) OK 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check