Michel v. Rocket Engineering Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he San Antonio Court of Appeals is the only court that applies an abuse of discretion standard of review for the granting or denial of a special appearance. Compare Joe Guerra Exxon Station v. Michelin Tyre Public Ltd. Co., 32 S.W.3d 383, 386 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion) and Case v. Grammar, 31 S.W.3d 304, 307-08 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (same) with LeBlanc v. Kyle, 28 S.W.3d 99, 101 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (applying factual sufficiency review); Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. Olson, 21 S.W.3d 707, 715 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. filed) (same); In re Estate of Judd, 8 S.W.3d at 440-41 (same); C Loc Retention Sys., Inc. v. Hendrix, 993 S.W.2d 473, 476 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (same); Ball v. Bigham, 990 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (same); Cadle v. Graubart, 990 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1999, no pet.) (same); Happy Indus. Corp., 983 S.W.2d at 847 (same); Garner v. Furmanite Australia Party, Ltd., 966 S.W.2d 798, 802 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (same); Al Turki v. Taker, 958 S.W.2d 258, 260-61 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1997, pet. denied) (same). We do not view the amendment to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which adds the granting or denial of a special appearance to the list of interlocutory orders that may be appealed, as intending to change previous case law holding that sufficiency of the evidence was the standard of revi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. LONZA AG v. Blum

2. ““At one end of the scale are websites clearly used for transacting business over the Internet, such as entering into contracts and knowing and repeated transmission of files of information, which may be sufficient to establish minimum contacts with a state. On the other end of the spectrum are ‘passive’ websites that are used only for advertising over the Internet and are not sufficient to establish minimum contacts even though they are accessible to residents of a particular state. In the middle are ‘interactive’ websites that allow the ‘exchange’ of information between a potential customer and a host computer. Jurisdiction in cases involving interac tive websites is determined by the degree of interaction. Texas courts have used this test in determining whether an internet site is sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Novamerican Steel, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.

3. “purposeful activity directed toward residents of [Texas] to be considered in determining whether general jurisdiction exists”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luxury Travel Source v. American Airlines, Inc.