Max Protetch, Inc. v. Herrin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that merely engaging in communications during the performance of a contract is generally insufficient to subject a nonresident to the forum’s jurisdiction
• holding that Protetch benefited by contracting for and receiving $65,000.00 from Herrin in exchange for a table and, due to an alleged misrepresentation and refusal to return the payment, has further benefited by retaining both the payment and the table
• holding plaintiffs claims arose out of communications in Houston forming “the core of the litigation”
• stating that we consider both the plaintiff’s pleading and the response to a special appearance in assessing jurisdictional contacts
• stating that mere communications made during performance of the contract generally are “insufficient to subject a nonresident to the forum’s jurisdiction”
• stating that we consider both the plaintiffs pleading and the response to a special appearance in assessing jurisdictional contacts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).