Goodenbour v. Goodenbour

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the burden on husband living in New Zealand and having to attend divorce proceedings in Texas was not great enough to defeat personal jurisdiction
• finding that it did not offend due process to subject the defendant to jurisdiction in Texas after noting that there was “no evidence in the record showing that litigation in Texas would be unfair or unreasonable to [defendant]”
• finding that it did not offend due process to subject the defendant to jurisdiction in Texas after noting that there was \no evidence in the record showing that litigation in Texas would be unfair or unreasonable to [defendant]\
• noting that a single act can support jurisdiction but that a single act or occasional acts may be insufficient to establish jurisdiction if the nature and quality of the act create merely an attenuated connection with the forum
• noting that a single act can support jurisdiction but that a single act or occasional acts may be insufficient to establish jurisdiction if the nature and quality of the act create merely an attenuated connection with the forum
• husband’s previous visits to Austin while living in New Zealand showed that it would not be an excessive burden to travel there for divorce proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).