Conflict of Laws (2009)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement, bordering four states, a civil-law nation, and international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Furthermore, Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

Conflict of Laws (2009)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement, bordering four states, a civil-law nation, and international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Furthermore, Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

Conflict of Laws (2010)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This Article reviews Texas conflict cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts; intrastate issues, such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue; and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state-law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. Although no data are readily available to confirm this, Texas is no doubt a primary state in the production of conflict-of-laws precedents. This results not only from its size and population, but also from its placement bordering four states, as well as a civil-law nation, and its involvement in international shipping. Only California shares these factors, with the partial exception of the states bordering Quebec. Texas courts experience every range of conflict-of-laws litigation. In addition to a large number of opinions on garden-variety examples of personal jurisdiction, Texas courts produce case law every year on Internet-based jurisdiction, prorogating and derogating forum-selection clauses, federal long-arm statutes with nationwide process, international forum non conveniens, parallel litigation, international family-law issues, and private lawsuits against foreign sovereigns. Interstate and international judgment recognition and enforcement offer fewer annual examples, possibly a sign of that subject\u27s administrative nature that results in only a few reported cases. Texas state and federal courts provide a fascinating study of conflicts issues every year, but the volume of case law now greatly exceeds this Survey\u27s ability to report on them, a function both of journal space and authors\u27 time. Accordingly, this Survey period\u27s article focuses on selective cases

Money / music by Wm. F. Braun; words by Walter Stephens

Cover: drawing of an African American male with outfolded pockets saying Wish I Had a Dime; Publisher: Frank K. Root and Co. (New York)https://egrove.olemiss.edu/sharris_b/1078/thumbnail.jp

A nonsense mutation in B3GALNT2 is concordant with hydrocephalus in Friesian horses

Background: Hydrocephalus in Friesian horses is a developmental disorder that often results in stillbirth of affected foals and dystocia in dams. The occurrence is probably related to a founder effect and inbreeding in the population. The aim of our study was to find genomic associations, to investigate the mode of inheritance, to allow a DNA test for hydrocephalus in Friesian horses to be developed. In case of a monogenic inheritance we aimed to identify the causal mutation. Results: A genome-wide association study of hydrocephalus in 13 cases and 69 controls using 29,720 SNPs indicated the involvement of a region on ECA1 (P T corresponding to XP_001491595 p.Gln475* was identical to a B3GALNT2 mutation identified in a human case of muscular dystrophy-dystroglycanopathy with hydrocephalus. All 16 available cases and none of the controls were homozygous for the mutation, and all 17 obligate carriers (= dams of cases) were heterozygous. A random sample of the Friesian horse population (n = 865) was tested for the mutation in a commercial laboratory. One-hundred and forty-seven horses were carrier and 718 horses were homozygous for the normal allele; the estimated allele frequency in the Friesian horse population is 0.085. Conclusions: Hydrocephalus in Friesian horses has an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance. A nonsense mutation XM_001491545 c.1423C>T corresponding to XP_001491595 p.Gln475* in B3GALNT2 (1: 75,859,296-75,909,376) is concordant with hydrocephalus in Friesian horses. Application of a DNA test in the breeding programme will reduce the losses caused by hydrocephalus in the Friesian horse population