Niehaus v. Cedar Bridge, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that specific jurisdiction did not exist over corporate officer who allegedly engaged in fraudulent activity outside of Texas with effects felt in Texas
• concluding that specific jurisdiction did not exist over corporate officer who allegedly engaged in fraudulent activity outside of Texas with effects felt in Texas
• concluding that specific jurisdiction did not exist over corporate officer who allegedly engaged in fraudulent activity outside of Texas with effects felt in Texas
• holding that officers of California corporation who gave themselves bonuses in same year corporation failed to pay lease in Texas did not purposefully avail themselves of Texas’s jurisdiction when all of their activities occurred in California and only injury was felt in Texas
• explaining that defendants’ fraudulent and tortious actions could support exercise of specific jurisdiction only if actions constituted purposeful availment and were substantially connected to litigation and forum
• explaining that defendants’ fraudulent and tortious actions could support exercise of specific jurisdiction only if actions constituted purposeful availment and were substantially connected to litigation and forum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).