No. 14-0186
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on October 12, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on February 26, 2016. It then denied rehearing on June 10, 2016 File Closed
Tracking 2 articles about this case.
March 4, 2016
from Volokh Conspiracy
February 26, 2016
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:
| Appellate District: | 13th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 13-12-00536-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Rogelio Valdez |
| Trial Court: | 139th District Court |
| County: | Hidalgo |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Jose Roberto Flores |
| Trial Docket: | C-1027-09-C |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-10-17 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2016-09-02 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2016-06-24 | Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. | Denied | |
| 2016-06-20 | Reply to Response to Motion | ||
| 2016-06-17 | Response to Motion filed | ||
| 2016-06-16 | Motion to stay mandate filed. | ||
| 2016-06-15 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2016-06-10 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Denied | |
| 2016-06-10 | Corrected opinion | ||
| 2016-05-04 | Amicus Curiae Letter Received | ||
| 2016-04-13 | Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2016-04-13 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2016-03-09 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2016-03-09 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2016-02-29 | Letter sent to parties from Supreme Court - See Remarks | ||
| 2016-02-26 | Opinion issued | Court of appeals' judgment affirmed | |
| 2016-02-26 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between October 12, 2015 and February 26, 2016. | |||
| 2015-10-12 | Oral argument | ||
| 2015-10-09 | Exhibits in case/cause filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2015-10-08 | Sealed document filed in case | ||
| 2015-09-23 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2015-09-22 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2015-09-21 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| This case was waiting for oral argument between July 10, 2015 and September 21, 2015. | |||
| 2015-07-10 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2015-06-15 | Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates | ||
| This case was waiting for oral argument between February 20, 2015 and June 15, 2015. | |||
| 2015-02-20 | Motion to postpone submission date disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-02-19 | Motion to postpone submission date filed | ||
| 2015-02-09 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2015-02-06 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2015-01-30 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2015-01-30 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-01-30 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2014-12-30 | Amicus Curiae Brief received (Amicus Curiae) | ||
| 2014-12-30 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2014-12-19 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-12-11 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-11-26 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-11-10 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-11-03 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-11-03 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-22 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-09-15 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2014-08-27 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-08-27 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-08-25 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2014-08-22 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2014-08-21 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2014-08-14 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-08-06 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-07-07 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-06-30 | Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed | ||
| 2014-06-30 | MET to file reply disposed of | Filing granted | |
| 2014-06-06 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2014-05-29 | Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates | ||
| 2014-05-06 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2014-05-01 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2014-04-29 | Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-04-16 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-03-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-03-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ruiz, Gloria De Los Angeles Trevino |
|
Respondent | ||||||||
| Publimax, S.A. de C.V. |
|
Petitioner | ||||||||
| TV Azeteca, S.A.B. de C.V. |
|
Petitioner | ||||||||
| Chapoy, Patricia |
|
Petitioner |
| Amicus Curiae | Counsel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Association of Broadcasters |
|
||
| Woolley, Patrick |
|
||
| Albright, Alexandra Wilson |
|
This is a defamation case involving a broadcast that originated in Mexico and, it is alleged, caused harm in Texas. TV Azteka broadcasts from a location in Mexico that reaches both a local audience and several cities on the Texas side of the border.
The TV station filed a special appearance arguing that Texas courts lack jurisdiction to hear this defamation claim. The trial court denied that request, and the court of appeals agreed that Texas courts can proceed.
The parties dispute the degree to which the TV station has chosen to avail itself of the business opportunities, and legal responsibilities that may come, from having its signal extend into Texas.The plaintiff points to some materials suggesting that TV Azteka was selling advertisers on the benefits of having the signal extend into Texas. Emphasizing a different aspect of its revenue, the TV station says that it had no legal control over how its signals were used in Texas and was unable to charge local cable stations to rebroadcast them.
The national and state associations of broadcasters have filed amicus briefs, urging the Texas Supreme Court to take the case and rule that signals crossing international borders — like postings on the internet — do not automatically create personal jurisdiction wherever they are read.
