<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                NO.  97CI-16633
JOHN J. DANIELSON                                       IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and THOMAS E. HARDING,
Plaintiffs,
v.                                                      225/TH/ JUDICIAL COURT
DTM CORPORATION,
      Defendant.                                        BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS


                         PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION


Plaintiffs, JOHN J. DANIELSON and THOMAS E. HARDING, on behalf of themselves and
the class of persons described below, file this Original Petition against
Defendant, DTM CORPORATION.
Parties

1.  Plaintiff JOHN J. DANIELSON in an individual who resides in San Antonio,
    Bexar County, Texas.

2.  Plaintiff THOMAS E. HARDING is an individual who resides in Edwards County
    near Del Rio, Texas.

3.  Defendant, DTM Corporation ("DTM"), is a corporation organized under the
    laws of Texas, with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. DTM
    should be served with a Citation and a copy of this Petition by certified
    mail, return receipt requested, to its registered agent for service of
    process, DTM Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas
    75201.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.  The Court has jurisdiction over the subject of this case because it involves
    an amount in dispute exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of the
    Court.

5.  The Court has jurisdiction over all named parties because all parties reside
    in or do business in Texas.

6.  Venue is proper in this Court because, as stated in the facts below (and
    incorporated here), a substantial part of the events giving rise to this
    case occurred in Bexar County as the purchases of securities on which this
    case is based occurred in Bexar County.

FACTS

7.  DTM is an issuer and/or seller of securities, i.e., its common stock which
    was issued to the public in an initial public offering on or near May 2,
    1997. DTM registered those securities under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
    Plaintiffs currently do not claim any right under the U.S. Securities Act of
    1933, and currently do not seek any relief or recovery under that Act.
    Plaintiffs refer to that Act only to the extent that registration of
    securities by DTM under that Act is an element of their claim below under
    Article 581-33 of the Revised Civil Statues of Texas.

8.  The prospectus and other documents required in connection with that
    registration omitted material facts which were necessary to make the
    statements made in the prospectus not misleading in light of the
    circumstances in which they were made. The prospectus failed to state the
    true financial condition of DTM as of May 2, 1997, because it failed to
    state that DTM would suffered substantial losses in the near term. The
    prospectus also failed to state that there was an ongoing weakness in the
    demand for DTM products or services in its North American markets; or that a
    previously anticipated change in the product mix of DTM would cause it to
    suffer significant losses.

9.  The stock of DTM was initially made available to the public on or near May
    2, 1997. The opening price was $8.00 per share. The stock traded in a range
    from approximately $8.00 to $8.50 per share from may 2, 1997, until after
    the close of trading on June 18, 1997,

<PAGE>

    when DTM issued a press release announcing its substantial losses, the
    softness in demand for its products, and a "change" in its product mix. On
    June 19, 1997, immediately after the press release, the price of DTM stock
    suddenly dropped to approximately $5.25 per share, and has continued to drop
    since then to less than $4.00 per share, causing Plaintiffs substantial loss
    and/or actual damages in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional
    limit of the Court.

CLAIM

10. DTM, thus, violated Article 581-33 for that violation, either in equity to
    rescind their purchase or for damages.

11. Mr. Danielson and Dr. Harding bought the registered securities in San
    Antonio, Texas. Plaintiffs now sue DTM under Article 581-33 for that
    violation, either in equity to rescind their purchase or for damages

CLASS

12. Plaintiffs bring this case on their own behalf and on behalf of the class of
    persons who purchased stock in DTM between may 2, 1997, and June 18, 1997.
    Those persons are so numerous that joinder of all them is impractical. The
    claims of each of those persons have common questions of law and/or fact.
    The claims by Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class, and Plaintiffs,
    as representatives of the class, will fairly and adequately protect the
    interests of the class.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

13. Plaintiffs request that the Clerk issue a citation for service on DTM as
    stated above. Plaintiffs further request that the Court set this case for
    trial on the merits before a jury, and pay the jury fee with filing this
    petition.

14. Plaintiffs request rescission and/or damages as provided under Article
    581-33(C).


                                       2
<PAGE>

15. Plaintiffs also request recovery of interest, costs and reasonable
    attorneys' fees as permitted under Article 581-33 or other Texas law.

16. Plaintiffs also request all other relief to which they are entitled.


Respectfully submitted,


BINGHAM & LEA, P.C.
333 Covent Street
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1348
210-224-1819 Telephone
210-224-0141 Facsimilie



BY:  /s/ Royal B. Lea, III
     ROYAL B. LEA, III
     State Bar No. 12069680


CACHEAUX, CAVAZOX, NEWTON, MARTIN & CUKJATI, L.L.P.
333 Covent Street
San Antono, Texas  78205-1348
210-224-2627 Telephone
210-223-5052 Facsimile


BY:  /s/ Troy S. Martin, III
  TROY ("TREY") S. MARTIN, III
  State Bar No. 1310880

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and the class of persons
described above.


                                       3