Markette v. X-Ray X-Press Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding trial court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over Indiana lawyer where lawyer exercised his legal judgment and formed his legal opinion in Indiana and relevant communications were made from there to Texas
• affirming special appearance of Indiana law firm where advisory work allegedly giving rise to lawsuit was performed in Indiana, not Texas, despite communication of results of plaintiffs in Texas
• courts analyze degree of “connectedness” between forum contacts and litigation to determine whether operative facts of litigation focus on those contacts
• “[The Indiana attorney’s] judgment, which will be the focus of the underlying litigation, was exercised in Indiana . . . .”
• out- of-state contractual performance insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, despite communication of results of work to plaintiffs in Texas
• out- 25 of-state contractual performance insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, despite communication of results of work to plaintiffs in Texas

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).