# General Electric Co. v. Brown & Ross International Distributors, Inc.

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · February 21, 1991 · 804 S.W.2d 527

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641160

## Case

- **Full name:** GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. BROWN & ROSS INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Stephen Pamas and Jerry Mares, Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** February 21, 1991
- **Citations:** 804 S.W.2d 527; 1990 WL 71916
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Bass, Dunn, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641160

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that corporate officers, who had personally arranged theft of design plans, ordered counterfeit and mislabeled parts, and made misrepresentations to customers were subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas
- holding that nonresident defendant who “expected to profit from its activities . . . [in Texas] and . . . received a benefit from Texas residents . . . could reasonably have assumed that a Texas court might call”
- holding that corporate officers who had personally arranged theft of design plans, ordered counterfeit and mislabeled parts, and made misrepresentations to customers were subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas
- holding that nonresident defendant who “expected to profit from its activities ... [in Texas] and ... received a benefit from Texas residents ... could reasonably have assumed that a Texas court might call”
- holding that corporate president was subject to Texas court's jurisdiction because, by participating in a scheme to defraud Texas customers, he should have anticipated a call to Texas courts

## Opinion text

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing, defendants contend we reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo, when we should have applied the factual and legal sufficiency test to the evidence. The appropriate standard of review in the appeal of a special appearance case is to review all the evidence in the record. See Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex.1990); Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 616 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1981), reversed, 638 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.1982), reversed, Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 , 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984).
We conclude we applied the correct standard of review and we overrule the motion for rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641160. Public record. Not legal advice.