Central Freight Lines Inc. v. APA Transport Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that general personal jurisdiction is proper only when the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic
• noting that the plaintiff was based in Texas and Texas was the “primary location” of the interfered- with “business relationship”
• finding it fair and reasonable to assert personal jurisdiction over a case, even though a counterclaim, with identical claims, had been pending in another state for six months
• finding no general jurisdiction in Texas despite evidence that the defendant regularly sent salespeople to Texas to develop business, negotiate contracts, and service national accounts
• finding specific jurisdiction to exist where defendant “specifically and deliberately ‘reached out’ to a Texas corporation ... with the deliberate aim of entering into a long-standing contractual relationship”
• finding personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant who, among other things, entered into a contract “presumably kn[owing] that many of [the plaintiff’s] customers would also come from” the forum state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).