Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a presence in Texas is not sufficient unless the defendant is doing business in Texas
• holding that a presence in Texas is not sufficient unless the defendant is doing business in Texas
• holding that, despite defendant’s numerous cross-border business dealings with Texas companies, contacts were not continuous and systematic for purposes of general jurisdiction because “doing business with Texas” was not the same as “doing business in Texas.”
• finding that where a party fails to explain how discovery will create a genuine issue of material fact, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a Rule 56(f) motion
• stating that “federal judges may reject even the uncontradicted conclusions of an expert witness and reach their own decisions on the basis of independent examination of foreign legal authorities.”
• stating that “[g]eneral jurisdiction can be assessed by evaluating contacts of the defendant with the forum over a reasonable number of years, up to the date the suit was filed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).