Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice

24 Citing cases

  1. Sarieddine v. Moussa

    820 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. App. 1991)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that Abu-Dhabi was an available forum because the defendant had submitted to jurisdiction there

    The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine exercised by courts to resist imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant, even if jurisdiction is supported by the long-arm statute and would not violate due process. A trial court will exercise the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it determines that, for the convenience of the litigants and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the action should be instituted in another forum. Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1969, no writ). In determining whether to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the trial court must weigh a number of factors.

  2. RSR Corp. v. Siegmund

    309 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 93 times
    Holding defendants did not meet their burden where they did not show how the cost of securing presence of witnesses would be lower in Chile than in Texas

    In their third issue, appellants complain about the trial court's decision to dismiss their case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to exercise equitable powers to avoid "imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant" upon a court's determination that the convenience of litigants and witnesses and the interests of justice warrant litigating the matter in another forum. Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 839; Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, no writ). "Dismissal based on forum non conveniens is appropriate "when there are sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state to confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, but the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.'" In re Omega Protein, Inc., 288 S.W.3d 17, 21 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (quoting In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex. 2007) (plurality op.)).

  3. Truong v. Vuong

    105 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App. 2003)

    A trial court exercises the right to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it determines that, for the convenience of the litigants and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the action should be pursued in another forum. Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, no writ). The doctrine rests on a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum, a presumption which a defendant may overcome only when the private and public interest factors clearly point toward trial in the alternative forum.

  4. Easter v. Tech Manag

    135 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    In precluding dismissal of a Texas resident's claims, section 71.051(e) echoes settled common law that upholds the absolute right of Texas residents to sue in Texas courts. See Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, no writ) (holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claims by Texas resident on grounds of forum non conveniens); Gas Butano, S.A. v. Rodriguez, 375 S.W.2d 542, 543-44 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1964, no writ) (holding that trial court did not err by denying motion of nonresident Mexican corporation to dismiss claims of Texas resident on grounds of forum non conveniens); see also TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 13 ("open courts" provision). Technetics defends the trial court's dismissal under A.P. Keller Dev., Inc. v. One Jackson Place, Ltd., 890 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, no pet.), which upheld a discretionary dismissal of a Texas corporation's suit for breach of contract on forum-non-conveniens grounds.

  5. Tullis v. Georgia-Pacific

    45 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    In Tullis, the Texas trial court dismissed a suit arising out of an automobile accident in Tennessee on forum non conveniens grounds.

    The doctrine should be applied "with caution, exceptionally, and only for good reasons." Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, no writ). Under the common law, Texas courts held that dismissal was appropriate when a trial court determined that, for the convenience of the litigants and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the action should be instituted in another forum.

  6. Direct Color Serv. v. Eastman Kodak

    929 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 19 times
    Holding alternate forum was "adequate" where defendant stipulated against assertion of limitations as condition of dismissal

    McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1985, writ dism'd). A Texas court will exercise the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it determines that, for the convenience of the litigants and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, the action should be instituted in another forum.Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 839; Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1969, no writ). Historically, there has been some question in Texas as to which causes of actions are subject to forum non conveniens analysis.

  7. Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro

    786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990)   Cited 59 times
    In Dow Chemical Co. v. Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990), this Court considered whether by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 71.031, the Legislature statutorily abolished the doctrine of forum non conveniens as to suits such as this.

    It is a sound doctrine rooted in public policy concerns of judicial economy and fairness, and it is recognized in Texas. See, e.g., Flaiz v. Moore, 353 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio), rev'd on other grounds, 359 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. 1962); see also McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1985, writ dism'd); Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1969, no writ); Cole v. Lee, 435 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1968, writ dism'd); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 341 S.W.2d 464 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1960, writ dism'd). " Forum non conveniens is a necessary antidote to the greatly expanded jurisdiction provided by 'long-arm' statutes.

  8. Munro v. Jagpal

    No. 05-21-00125-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 9, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Id. "[T]he doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied with caution, exceptionally, and only for good reasons." Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1969, no writ). If a trial court is to decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds, "the question must be raised at a time and in a manner that will give the parties an opportunity to present evidence regarding the circumstances that are relevant to a determination of whether jurisdiction should or should not be retained."

  9. Gottwald v. De Cano

    568 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    The doctrine of forum non conveniens presumes that at least two forums are available to the plaintiff to pursue the claim. Sarieddine v. Moussa , 820 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied) (citing Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice , 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1969, no writ) ). For the presumption to apply, however, there must be a suitable alternate forum that is both "available" and "adequate."

  10. Gottwald v. De Cano

    No. 08-16-00044-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 13, 2018)

    The doctrine of forum non conveniens presumes that at least two forums are available to the plaintiff to pursue the claim. Sarieddine v. Moussa, 820 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied) (citing Van Winkle-Hooker Co. v. Rice, 448 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1969, no writ). For the presumption to apply, however, there must be a suitable alternate forum that is both "available" and "adequate."