The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado Residents, were ca

Question

The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado Residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the breeding cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas.
The Texas statute provided that the Texas court could exercise jurisdiction over an out of state defendant only if (1) the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
The defendants weren’t residents of Texas to pick up two other cats, not related to the litigation, that they were going to take to a cat show. During that same visit, the defendants took a cat unrelated to the lawsuit to see a Texas veterinarian, and the plaintiff’s husband assisted the defendants with a Web page for their business. The trial court found that sufficient minimum contacts had been established. The defendant appealed. How do you believe the appellate court would rule in this case, and why?

Explanation / Answer

The appellate court rules in favour of the Colorado residents . Minimum contacts was not established because the defendants weren't residents of Texas and they came to Texas to pick up two other cats unrelated to the lawsuit .The cat they took too the veterinarian was also not related to the lawsuit. They did not come to Texas to do business.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.