Court Opinion

ID: 9595957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:44:46.048846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:24.225048
License: Public Domain

MICHOL O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting from denial of appellant’s motion for en-banc rehearing.
By this opinion, this Court creates the concept of comparative personal jurisdiction.1 I dissent from the denial of en banc review.
The facts upon which the panel finds personal jurisdiction are extremely weak. The full Court should review both the legal and factual issues in this case.
I agree with the appellant that the panel should not have found personal jurisdiction over the appellant based on the panel’s suggestion of additional evidence the appellant could have introduced. There is always room to speculate about additional proof. The underlying rationale of court proceedings is that a trial creates a closed universe upon which to base a decision. We should not rule in this case based on hypothetical evidence.
Even if such evidence were available for review, I believe it would have little or no relevance. Evidence showing sales were low in other states, as compared to sales in Texas, should not be a factor to be consid*54ered in special appearance cases. Whether a defendant is involved in commerce in another state to a greater or lesser extent than in Texas should have no bearing on whether that defendant has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of Texas courts. Under the panel’s rationale, almost every defendant in a special appearance case would find it necessary to present evidence of a comparative statistical analysis with other states.
I would grant en banc review.

. Because the full Court has refused to hear the case en banc, the decision of the panel constitutes the decision of the whole court. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1992).