law special appearance | minimum contacts | general and specific jurisdiction | in personam jurisdiction
RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS INVOLVING SPECIAL APPEARANCES
Zinc Nacional, S.A. v. Bouche Trucking, Inc., No. 09-0734 (Tex. April 9, 2010)(per curiam)
(negligence case, non-resident defendant did not have minimum contacts with Texas for purposes of
establishing specific jurisdiction by using a third-party trucking service to transport its goods through Texas
to an out-of-state customer)
ZINC NACIONAL, S.A. v. BOUCHÉ TRUCKING, INC.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-07-00314-CV, 296
SW3d 763, 07-31-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc., No. 08-0669 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(Guzman)(no personal
jurisdiction, out-of-state officers of construction company should have been granted special appearance, no
minimum contacts shown)
DAN KELLY AND LAURA HOFSTATTER v. GENERAL INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; from Harris County;
14th district (14-07-00270-CV, 262 SW3d 79, 07-03-08)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Eva M. Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court.
PULMOSAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. WILLIAM LAMB; from Harris County; 14th district (14-
08-00279-CV, 273 SW3d 829, 12‑09‑08)(interlocutory appeal contests the denial of a special appearance in
multi-district silica litigation. Pulmosan sought its dismissal from the litigation based on lack of personal
jurisdiction. Although declining to exercise general jurisdiction over Pulmosan, the trial court found that it
could exercise specific jurisdiction. We affirm.
LANGSTON, SWEET & FREESE, P.A. AND SWEET & FREESE, P.L.L.C. v. CLETUS P. ERNSTER, III;
CLETUS P. ERNSTER, III, P.C.; AND R.G. TAYLOR, II, P.C.; from Jefferson County; 9th district
(09-07-00435-CV, 255 SW3d 402, 05-08-08) (special appearance, personal jurisdiction, interlocutory appeal)
In this lawsuit over division of litigation expenses, two law firms and an individual attorney filed special
appearance motions challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over them. The trial court denied the motions,
and this interlocutory appeal followed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(7) (Vernon Supp.
2007). We conclude the trial court has jurisdiction over the law firms but not the individual attorney.We affirm
the trial court's order denying the special appearance motions of Langston, Sweet, & Freese and Sweet &
Freese. Richard Freese's contacts are insufficient to support either general or specific jurisdiction on this
record. We reverse the order denying his special appearance, and instruct the trial court to dismiss Richard
Freese from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
529900 ONTARIO LIMITED A/K/A NIAGARA SAFETY PRODUCTS v. ELK RIVER, INC., AND HORTENCIA
WARDLOW; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-00158-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 03-29-07, pet. denied)
TIMOTHY J. CARPENTER; MERVIN G. SCHAEFER; JAMES P. MALONEY; OLDCOSY CORP.; HENRY J
ACKSON; DAVID REINDL; HENRY C. HESS; DAVID FALLDORF; AND JANE P. KOTH v. EXELON
CORPORATION AND EXELON ENTERPRISES COMPANY, LLC; from Harris County; 14th district
(14-07-00149-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 10-23-07, pet. denied April 2008)(appeal from order granting special