Revell v. Lidov

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 defamatory online article “presumably directed at the entire world, or perhaps just concerned U.S. citizens,” was “not directed specifically at Texas” for personal jurisdiction purposes
• holding Texas courts lacked specific jurisdiction over Massachusetts resident and New York university that allegedly defamed Texas resident in article posted on university’s internet bulletin board
• finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant because publication of allegedly defamatory statements on a nationally available internet site was not expressly aimed at the forum state
• highlighting the factors in Mink — identical to those at issue here — which categorize the page as passive for jurisdiction analysis purposes
• stating that at one end of the shding scale are cases where Internet site owners “engage in repeated online contacts with forum residents over the Internet,” which may be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction
• distinguishing Calder on the ground that the article was not directed at Texas readers as distinguished from readers in other states

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).