Conflict of Laws (1990)

Conflicts of laws occur when foreign elements appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents in sister states or foreign countries, and lawsuits from other jurisdictions represent foreign elements that may create problems of judicial jurisdiction, choice of law, or recognition of foreign judgments, respectively. This Article reviews Texas conflicts of law during the Survey period from late 1988 through 1989, discussing cases from Texas state and federal courts. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, criminal law, intrastate matters such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. During the Survey period, judicial jurisdiction developments included the Fifth Circuit\u27s adherence to the stream of commerce standard of Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Technology Corp., despite its rejection by a plurality of the United States Supreme Court. Also in Schlobohm v. Schapiro, the Texas Supreme Court modified the Texas jurisdictional formula to parallel the federal constitutional standard. The Texas formula, previously set out in O\u27Brien v. Lanpar Co. , specifically provided for the assertion of specific jurisdiction only when the nonresident defendant\u27s acts or transactions in Texas gave rise to or were connected with the cause of action. In Schlobohm, the court recognized that the previous formula was incomplete because it did not reflect the concept of general jurisdiction. The court therefore modified the O\u27Brien v. Lanpar formula to state that jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident defendant with continuous and systematic contacts with Texas, even if the cause of action does not arise from a specific contact. Choice of law analysis continued its development under the most significant relationship test, with noteworthy decisions involving usury, statutes of limitation, the act of state doctrine, and the requisites for pleading foreign law. The area of foreign judgments endured a third ruling that the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act is unconstitutional, based on its failure to provide expressly for a plenary hearing prior to enforcement

Conflict of Laws (1988)

Conflicts of law occur when foreign elements appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents in sister states or foreign countries, and lawsuits from other jurisdictions represent foreign elements that may create problems in judicial jurisdiction, choice of law, or recognition of foreign judgments, respectively. This Article reviews Texas conflicts of law during the Survey period from late 1986 through 1987. The survey includes cases from Texas state and federal courts and non-Texas cases affecting Texas practice. Excluded are cases involving federal/state conflicts, criminal law, intrastate matters such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, except when they relate to the personal jurisdiction inquiry, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. During the Survey period, the Texas Supreme Court decided an important case finding jurisdiction based on contacts related to the cause of action. During the same period, the United States Supreme Court decided a case, which, although based on varying rationales, was the first unanimous decision finding a lack of personal jurisdiction since International Shoe Co. v. Washington. Choice of law highlights include Texas\u27s enactment of a new statute governing contractual choice of law and Texas courts\u27 improvement in their application of the most significant relationship test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Foreign judgments\u27 significant development was the declared unconstitutionality of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act

Conflict of Laws (1988)

Conflicts of law occur when foreign elements appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents in sister states or foreign countries, and lawsuits from other jurisdictions represent foreign elements that may create problems in judicial jurisdiction, choice of law, or recognition of foreign judgments, respectively. This Article reviews Texas conflicts of law during the Survey period from late 1986 through 1987. The survey includes cases from Texas state and federal courts and non-Texas cases affecting Texas practice. Excluded are cases involving federal/state conflicts, criminal law, intrastate matters such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, except when they relate to the personal jurisdiction inquiry, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. During the Survey period, the Texas Supreme Court decided an important case finding jurisdiction based on contacts related to the cause of action. During the same period, the United States Supreme Court decided a case, which, although based on varying rationales, was the first unanimous decision finding a lack of personal jurisdiction since International Shoe Co. v. Washington. Choice of law highlights include Texas\u27s enactment of a new statute governing contractual choice of law and Texas courts\u27 improvement in their application of the most significant relationship test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Foreign judgments\u27 significant development was the declared unconstitutionality of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act

Conflicts of Law (1989)

Conflicts of law occur when foreign elements appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents in sister states or foreign countries, and lawsuits from other jurisdictions represent foreign elements that may create problems in judicial jurisdiction, choice of law, or recognition of foreign judgments, respectively. This Article reviews Texas conflicts of law during the Survey period from late 1987 through 1988. The survey includes cases from Texas state and federal courts. Excluded are cases involving federal state conflicts, criminal law, intrastate matters such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. During the Survey period, the Texas Supreme Court effected no significant changes or additions to jurisdictional jurisprudence, but the Northern District of Texas did craft a rule for personal jurisdiction in federal question cases when nationwide service of process is authorized. Cases decided during the Survey period also exhibited both the use of rule 108 as a substitute for the Texas long-arm statute and the difficulty in imputing jurisdictional contacts between parent and subsidiary corporations. Choice of law highlights include a controversial rejection of a Florida noncompetition agreement, as well as the United States Supreme Court\u27s sequel to a 1985 opinion on legislative jurisdiction. Foreign judgments offered three noteworthy cases but no developments