Wright v. Sage Engineering, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• Holding that there is a foreseeable injurious effect of sending false information into Texas knowing it will be relied upon, for which the defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into court
• disregarding specially appearing affiant’s testimony that he did not commit a tort in Texas because the statement was a legal conclusion
• corporate officer not protected “from specific personal jurisdiction as to intentional torts or fraudulent acts for which he may be held individually liable”
• because corporate officer could be individually liable for misrepresentations made as corporate representative, specific jurisdiction was proper over him in individual capacity
• “It is not necessary that a nonresident defendant’s conduct actually occur in Texas, as long as the defendant’s acts were purposefully directed toward the state.”
• corporate officer not protected \from specific personal jurisdiction as to intentional torts or fraudulent acts for which he may be held individually liable\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).