Intera Corporation v. George Henderson III

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction commits clear error by entering dismissal with prejudice, because such a dismissal cannot reach the merits
• holding that defendant “would be substantially burdened” if forced to litigate in a state in which he did not reside
• holding that a Rule 59(e) motion containing a single “concise citation” sufficed to toll the appeals period
• holding that 11 The ICC provides that: Any . . . contract [for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated within receiving states] shall provide for: .... (2
• writing that “if a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter, it cannot properly reach the merits of the case.”
• explaining that where defendants “were not parties” to contract containing Tennessee choice-of-law provision, they “could [not] have reasonably expected to be haled into a Tennessee court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).