Chenault v. Walker

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a trial court is not obligated to take as true “conclusory allegations” or “farfetched inferences”
• stating that a trial court is not obligated to take as true ―conclusory allegations‖ or ―farfetched inferences‖
• stating that when adjudicating Rule 12.02(2) motions, trial courts “should not credit conclusory allegations or draw farfetched inferences”
• approving use of conspiracy theory of jurisdiction upon showing that conspirators intended to do something they could reasonably expect to lead to “consequences” in forum
• expressing concern that “the burden on an out-of-state defendant” subjected to jurisdictional discovery “may in some cases be nearly as great as if the court simply ruled from the start that jurisdiction was present and allowed litigation to proceed”
• expressing concern that ―the burden on an out-of-state defendant‖ subjected to jurisdictional discovery ―may in some cases be nearly as great as if the court simply ruled from the start that jurisdiction was present and allowed litigation to proceed‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).