In the Interest of: J.S., of: B.W., Father

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that court did not have specific jurisdiction over defendant in Texas based in part on choice of law provision designating that Alaska law would control
• extensive communications between Texas and Alaska in the development of the contract insufficient to count as purposeful activity
• “Although [Alaska Mechanical] did agree to purchase goods which it knew were to be manufactured by Hydrokinetics in Texas, no performance by Alaska Mechanical was to take place in Texas, other than perhaps the payment for the goods.”
• plaintiff’s performance in forum state discounted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).