Specific Jurisdiction Is Confusing

Within the last month, area courts have reached the following holdings:

• in Ethridge v. Samsung, a Fifth Circuit panel majority found that a manufacturer of batteries was subject to jurisdiction in Texas (over a dissent that shares common ground with the supreme court opinion cited below); No. 23-40094 (5th Cir. May 14, 2025).
• in BRP-Rotax v. Shaik, the Texas Supreme Court found that a manufacturer of aircraft engines was not subject to jurisdiction in Texas, because it lacked “an intent or purpose to serve the Texas market.” No. 23-0756 (Tex. June 20, 2025); and
• in Western Trails Charters and Tours, LLC v. Provance, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that an out-of-state bus company purposely availed itself of Texas by entering an “Interline Agreement” with Greyhound, but the “operative facts” of the claims did not arise from those contacts. No. 05-24-01089-CV (Tex. App.–Dallas May 29, 2025) (mem. op.).

All of these opinions are thoughtful and carefully reasoned. But Justice Busby’s concurrence in the Rotax case makes a powerful, big-picture point about this area of law – especially in “stream of commerce” cases, the International Shoe framework is complex, confusing, and remains substantially unsettled after decades of efforts to clarify it. He recommends an “originalist” approach, which may or may not be an improvement in terms of the results reached, but has much to commend it as a long-needed source of certainty in this significant area of commercial law.