bupicinc court held that the state did have in personam jurisdiction over Seaway and World- Wide, the companies appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the Court decided in this case? Why? [World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (19ov).] 7. The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plain- tiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breed- ing cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that a Sthe Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas. The Texas statute provides that the Texas court could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defen- dant only if (1) the defendant has purposefully estab lished minimum contacts with the forum state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with tradi- tional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The defendants were not residents of Texas and had no business in Texas. The only contact the defendants had with Texas was a single trip they made to Texas to pick up two other cats, not related to the litigation, that they were going to take to a cat show. During that same visit, the defendants took a cat unrelated to the lawsuit to see a Texas veterinarian, and the plain- tiff's husband assisted the defendants with a Web page for their business. The trial court found that sufficient minimum contacts had been established. The defendants appealed. How do you believe the appellate court would rule in this case, and why? [Hagan v. Field, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 393.] 8. Le Cabaret 481, Inc., an adult entertainment cor- poration, wanted to open a strip club in the city of to searchMicr X MGT X df New Doc A> Read aloud | Draw V Highlight v Q ipality of Kingston, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 706 (2005).] 9. Thirteen record labels filed a copyright violation suit against Hummer Winblad Venture Partners (Hummer), an owner of Napster, a peer-to-peer file- sharing network for online distribution of music. S Hummer filed a counterclaim alleging antitrust violations against the record labels because they n, conspired to exclude independent music distribu- tors like Napster from the online music distribu- 1g tion market. The record labels argued that Hummer to lacked standing to make its counterclaims because n- Hummer, not Napster, made the counterclaims and eb Hummer never competed directly with the record hat labels. Hummer, on the other hand. argued that it ed. had standing because it financed Napster, a partici- the pant in the online music distribution market. How ny? do you think the court ruled in this case? Why? ifth IIn re Napster Copyright Litig. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners. 354 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (2005).1 cor- 10. The plaintiff's, parents of underage children. sued the y of Advanced Brands and Importing Co.. an importer ince of alcoholic beverages. seeking an injunction pro- thin hibiting advertisers from advertising its beers and olic diapages in the form of compensation for the money