Opinion ID: 2381510
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Interest of Texas

Text: The dissenting members of the court falsely attempt to paint a picture of Texas becoming an irresistable forum for all mass disaster lawsuits, Gonzalez dissent, 786 S.W.2d 690, and for personal injury cases from around the world, Hecht dissent, 786 S.W.2d 707. They suggest that our citizens will be forced to hear cases in which [t]he interest of Texas in these disputes is likely to be ... slight, Cook dissent, 786 S.W.2d 697. Although these suppositions undoubtedly will serve to stir public debate, they have little basis in fact. The dissenting justices each know that for a Texas jury to hear a case, Texas must obtain in personam jurisdiction over the defendants in question. See Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 504, 67 S.Ct. at 841 ([T]he doctrine of forum non conveniens can never apply if there is an absence of jurisdiction or mistake of venue.). As Justice Cook correctly notes, a state's power to assert its jurisdiction is limited by the due process clause of the United States Constitution. In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), the United States Supreme Court held that a state may exercise in personam jurisdiction only when a defendant has certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' Id. (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). Under Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.1990), a defendant must have sufficient contacts with Texas in each lawsuit such that the assertion of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. Due process mandates that these requirements be satisfied before a Texas court may assert jurisdiction over a defendant. The personal jurisdiction-due process analysis will ensure that Texas has a sufficient interest in each case entertained in our state's courts. [8] Specifically, Texas has a substantial interest in the case at bar. As stated previously, this suit has been filed against Shell, a corporation with its world headquarters in Texas, doing extensive business in Texas and manufacturing chemicals in Texas. The suit arose out of alleged acts occurring in Texas and alleged decisions made in Texas. The suit also has been filed against Dow, a corporation with its headquarters in Michigan, but apparently having substantial contacts with Texas. Dow operates the country's largest chemical plant in Texas, manufacturing chemicals within sixty miles of the largest population center in Texas, where millions of Texans reside. Shell and Dow cannot now seek to avoid the Texas civil justice system and a jury of Texans.