Coury v. Prot

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the trial court “was entitled to regard [plaintiff’s] representations as lacking in candor and credibility” when plaintiff gave conflicting statements about his domicile to suit his legal interests
• holding that the record supported a finding of a Texas domicile from defendant’s assertions that he and his wife did not intend to remain in France indefinitely and always intended to return to Texas
• noting that factors for determining domicile include “places where the litigant ... owns real and personal property”
• noting that domicile typically requires physical presence in a location and an intention to remain there indefinitely
• noting that the non-movant may not rest upon their own allegations in showing a genuine fact issue for trial
• noting that “there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).