IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 05-0311

════════λ= 2;═══

In re AutoNation, Inc. and Auto M. Imports North, Ltd., = d/b/a=20 Mercedes-Benz of Houston-North, Relators

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Writ of = Mandamus

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══

Argued October 19,=20 2006

Justice Willett delivered the = opinion of=20 the Court, in which Chief = Justice=20 Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice = Medina, = Justice=20 Green, and Justice Johnson joined.

Justice O=92Neill filed a = concurring=20 opinion.

Relator AutoNation, = Inc. sued=20 Garrick Hatfield in Florida to enforce a covenant not to = compete.=20 In the employment contract containing the covenant, AutoNation and Hatfield had agreed to litigate any = disputes=20 arising under the contract in Florida = under=20 Florida law.=20 Hatfield later sued AutoNation in Texas under = the contract.=20 The trial court declined to dismiss or stay this action and enjoined = AutoNation from pursuing its first-filed = Florida = lawsuit. AutoNation now seeks mandamus relief to enforce = the=20 mandatory forum-selection clause, and we conditionally grant it.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

AutoNation owns more than 250 automobile = dealerships across=20 the country. Its corporate headquarters and principal place of business = are in=20 Florida. In=20 1999, AutoNation purchased a dealership in = Houston where = Hatfield=20 worked. In 2002, Hatfield, a Texas resident, transferred to relator Auto M. Imports North, Ltd., d/b/a = Mercedes-Benz of=20 Houston-North (MBHN), another AutoNation = dealership.[1] Hatfield was employed at will = as the=20 general manager of MBHN.

=20 In 2003, Hatfield was required to sign a =93Confidentiality,=20 No-Solicitation/No-Hire and Non-Compete Agreement=94 as a condition of = continued=20 employment. The agreement was between Hatfield and AutoNation =93together with its subsidiaries and = affiliates,=94=20 and included a one-year covenant not to compete.[2] A choice-of-law provision = stated that the=20 agreement would be construed under Florida law,=20 and a forum-selection clause provided that all suits arising out of the=20 agreement must be filed in Florida.[3]

=20 In January 2005, Hatfield left AutoNation to=20 accept a position with A-Rod OC, L.P., a = competing=20 Mercedes-Benz dealership. On February 7, 2005, AutoNation sought enforcement of the non-compete = agreement=20 by filing a suit for injunctive relief and damages against Hatfield in a = Broward=20 County, Florida, state court.[4] On March 2, 2005, before = learning of the=20 Florida=20 action, Hatfield and A-Rod filed suit against AutoNation and MBHN in a district court in Harris = County,=20 Texas. This suit sought a declaratory judgment that the non-compete = obligation=20 was governed by Texas law and was unenforceable.=20 Substantively, the Texas and = Florida suits = concern the=20 same issue of whether the non-compete agreement should be enforced. On = or about=20 March 14, after learning of the Florida suit, Hatfield and A-Rod filed = an=20 application for temporary restraining order and motion for temporary = injunction=20 in the Texas action, arguing that Texas law should govern a Texas = resident=92s=20 non-compete agreement, that AutoNation was = attempting=20 to circumvent Texas law by pursuing the Florida action, and that the = Florida=20 court likely would refuse to apply Texas law in deciding the = enforceability of=20 the non-compete agreement. Hatfield cited an unpublished Florida case, AutoNation, Inc. v. Hankins,[5] a case involving AutoNation and another of its Texas employees, in support of his argument that = the=20 Florida court would apply Florida non-compete law, which Hatfield = contended would=20 =93yield a result that offends Texas public policy.=94

=20 On March 31, 2005, AutoNation = answered the=20 Texas suit and moved to stay it on = grounds that=20 AutoNation and Hatfield were parties to the=20 first-filed Florida action. AutoNation also filed a response to the = application for TRO=20 and motion for temporary injunction, arguing that the Texas action should be dismissed or stayed = because, among=20 other reasons, the parties had contractually agreed to litigate their = disputes=20 in Florida and the Florida = action was filed=20 first.

=20 On April 5, the Texas court held an injunction = hearing and=20 stated that it was denying AutoNation=92s = request for a=20 stay and Hatfield=92s request for an injunction. The next day, however, = after a=20 telephone hearing prompted by Hatfield=92s claim that AutoNation had filed a pleading in the Florida = action that=20 interfered with the jurisdiction of the Texas court, a claim AutoNation denied, the Texas court signed a = temporary=20 anti-suit injunction that enjoined AutoNation from=20 =93taking any further action in connection with the pending lawsuit in = Florida . .=20 . attempting to enforce purported covenants against competition signed = by=20 Garrick Hatfield and AutoNation, Inc.,=94 = and =93filing=20 any future litigation in any non-Texas court seeking to enforce the=20 aforementioned covenants against competition.=94 The court cited the=20 Hankins decision in its order and stated that =93Texas public policy will likely be thwarted if = AutoNation is permitted to litigate enforceability = of the=20 restrictive covenants solely in Florida and=20 solely under Florida law.=94 The injunction order = concluded=20 that =93it is probable the covenant not to compete is unenforceable in = Texas,=94 and = the court=20 scheduled trial for June 13, 2005.

=20 The next day, AutoNation filed a = notice of=20 accelerated appeal of the injunction order, and the following week it = filed a=20 petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. The court of = appeals=20 denied mandamus relief on grounds that an adequate remedy at law was = available=20 to AutoNation, namely its earlier-filed = interlocutory=20 appeal. AutoNation now seeks mandamus relief = in this=20 Court. It seeks not only relief from the anti-suit injunction but = dismissal or=20 abatement of the entire case, relief with the intended effect of forcing = everyone to litigate their dispute in Florida as stipulated in the = non-compete=20 agreement.

=20 The court of appeals proceeded to decide and issue an opinion in = the=20 interlocutory appeal of the injunction order.[6] The court recognized a general = policy=20 disfavoring Texas courts from enjoining foreign = suits, but=20 noted an exception when the injunction is used =93to prevent the evasion = of=20 important public policy.=94 [7]

=20 The court of appeals relied on our 1990 decision in DeSantis v. Wackenhut=20 Corp.,[8] in which we held that the = enforcement of=20 non-compete covenants was a matter of fundamental Texas public policy, = governed=20 by Texas law. The court noted that Hatfield had presented the trial = court with=20 the Hankins decision, which indicated that Florida = courts would=20 apply their own law to this dispute.[9] The court of appeals concluded = that=20 =93[b]ecause the Texas Supreme Court has = held that=20 fundamental Texas public policy requires application of Texas law to the = question of enforceability of a non-compete agreement, we are unable to = hold=20 that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction to = halt the=20 Florida proceeding and allow the Texas case to proceed to trial.=94[10]

II. Discussion

A. Mandamus Relief on These Facts Is = Appropriate

=20 AutoNation seeks a writ of mandamus = directing=20 the trial court to dismiss this suit and thereby enforce the = forum-selection=20 clause in the parties=92 non-compete = agreement.[11] In In re Prudential Insurance Co. of = America, we=20 reaffirmed that mandamus relief will lie if the relator establishes a clear abuse of discretion = for which=20 there is no adequate appellate remedy.[12]

=20 Mandamus relief is available to enforce forum-selection clauses. = In In re AIU Insurance Co., decided the = same day=20 as Prudential, we recognized that such clauses generally = =93should be given=20 full effect=94 and =93should control absent a strong showing that [they] = should be=20 set aside.=94 [13] We observed that =93[s]ubjecting a party to trial in a forum other than = that agreed=20 upon and requiring an appeal to vindicate the rights granted in a=20 forum-selection clause is clear harassment=94 [14]=97harassment that injures not = just the=20 non-breaching party but the broader judicial system, injecting = inefficiency by=20 enabling forum-shopping, wasting judicial resources, delaying = adjudication on=20 the merits, and skewing settlement dynamics contrary to the parties=92=20 contracted-for expectations.[15] Accordingly, forum-selection=20 clauses=97like arbitration agreements, =93another type of = forum-selection=20 clause=94=97can be enforced through mandamus.[16]

=20 A few months later, in In = re=20 Automated Collection Technologies, Inc., we again held that failure = to=20 enforce a contractual forum-selection clause =93constitutes a clear = abuse of=20 discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.=94[17] We therefore granted mandamus = relief and=20 directed the trial court to dismiss the suit. We held that enforcement = of a=20 forum-selection clause is =93mandatory=94 unless the opposing party = clearly shows=20 that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause is = invalid=20 for reasons such as fraud or overreaching.[18] And in Automated Collection = Technologies, unlike here, there was no first-filed lawsuit in the = parties=92=20 agreed forum.

B. The Parties=92 Freely = Negotiated=20 Contract Should be Respected

=20 Our decisions in AIU and Automated Collection = Technologies=20 regarding the propriety of mandamus relief in forum-selection cases = comport with=20 the principle that parties generally have the freedom to negotiate = agreements as=20 they see fit.[19]

=20 Hatfield did not demonstrate fraud, overreaching, or undue = hardship that=20 would provide an exception to the rule that forum-selection clauses are=20 generally honored. Instead, relying on our decision in DeSantis, which involved only a = choice-of-law=20 provision and not a forum-selection clause, Hatfield insists we must = disregard=20 the forum-selection clause because the pending case concerns a covenant = not to=20 compete.

=20 In DeSantis, a Florida corporation filed suit in Texas against one of its Texas employees for violation of a = non-compete=20 agreement. The agreement included a choice-of-law provision specifying = that=20 Florida law=20 would govern disputes under the agreement. We held that Texas law = should govern=20 the dispute despite the choice-of-law provision.[20] We reasoned that Texas law should control because, among other = reasons,=20 =93the law governing enforcement of noncompetition=20 agreements is fundamental policy in Texas=94 and =93to apply the law of = another state=20 to determine the enforceability of such an agreement in the = circumstances of a=20 case like this would be contrary to that policy.=94[21] We therefore held that = enforceability of=20 the non-compete agreement =93must be judged by Texas law, not Florida law.=94 [22]

=20 Our decision today in no way questions the reasoning of DeSantis, but we decline Hatfield=92s = invitation to=20 superimpose the DeSantis = choice-of-law analysis=20 onto the law governing forum-selection clauses.[23] While DeSantis and the instant case both concern = Texas citizens working in Texas for a Florida-based company, = there are=20 critical distinctions. DeSantis, = decided before=20 the now-applicable version of the Covenants Not to Compete Act[24] and our recent decision in = Sheshunoff construing the Act,[25] did not concern a mandatory=20 forum-selection clause or first-filed litigation in the parties=92 = chosen=20 jurisdiction. DeSantis concerned how = Texas courts should construe = employment=20 contracts of Texas employees. We observed that = =93Texas has a materially greater interest than = Florida in = deciding=20 whether the noncompetition agreement in this = case=20 should be enforced.=94 [26] But we have never declared = that=20 fundamental Texas policy requires = that every=20 employment dispute with a Texas = resident must=20 be litigated in Texas. We recognized in AIU = that even=20 where Texas statutory provisions = specify the=20 application of Texas law, these = provisions are=20 irrelevant to the enforceability of a forum-selection clause where no = statute=20 =93requires suit to be brought or maintained in Texas.=94 [27] Along similar lines, even if = DeSantis requires Texas courts to apply Texas law to certain employment disputes, it = does not=20 require suit to be brought in Texas when a forum-selection clause = mandates=20 venue elsewhere. No Texas precedent = compels us=20 to enjoin a party from asking a Florida court=20 to honor the parties=92 express agreement to litigate a non-compete agreement in Florida, the employer=92s = headquarters and=20 principal place of business.

=20 Under Automated Collection Technologies and AIU, = our=20 controlling precedents on forum-selection clauses, the parties=92 = bargained-for=20 agreement merits judicial respect. This dispute should be heard in the=20 first-filed Florida action, as the parties = explicitly=20 contracted.[28]

=20 Finally, we note that today=92s decision according deference = to the=20 first-filed Florida action, besides honoring the = parties=92=20 contractual commitment, also honors principles of interstate comity. Our = federal=20 system benefits from a measure of state-to-state comity, which, while = not a=20 constitutional obligation, is =93a principle of mutual convenience = whereby one=20 state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial = decisions of=20 another.=94 [29] When a matter is first filed = in another=20 state, the general rule is that Texas courts stay the later-filed = proceeding=20 pending adjudication of the first suit.[30] Although the mere pendency of a previously filed action in one state = does not,=20 in itself, mandate abatement or dismissal in another state, deference = seems=20 particularly appropriate here. AutoNation=92s=20 first-filed Florida action is not an = attempt to=20 litigate a purely Texas matter in a forum that has no = relation=20 to the parties or their agreement. Florida has=20 an interest in this dispute, as described in two published interlocutory = appellate decisions in the related Florida suit.[31] Here, comity is not pitted = against=20 fundamental Texas policy,[32] which does not require that = every=20 non-compete case involving a Texas resident be litigated in our = courts, as=20 explained above. Accordingly, and without offending DeSantis, we will not presume to tell the = forty-nine=20 other states that they cannot hear a non-compete case=20 involving a Texas resident-employee and decide = what law=20 applies, particularly where the parties voluntarily agree to litigate=20 enforceability disputes there and not here. Our holding today rests = squarely on=20 the parties=92 contractual commitment, but it carries the concomitant = benefit of=20 extending comity to the Florida courts.

III. Conclusion

=20 We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial = court to=20 dismiss this suit in favor of the first-filed Florida action in the parties=92 = contracted-for=20 forum. Tex. R. App.=20 P. 52.8(c). We = are=20 confident that the trial court will comply; our writ will issue only if = it does=20 not.

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 _______________________________________

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Don R. Willett

=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Justice

Opinion delivered: June 29, 2007

^[1]=20 Relators AutoNation and MBHN=20 are sometimes referred to collectively as AutoNation.=20 The precise relationship between AutoNation = and MBHN=20 is unclear from the record. MBHN is described in the original petition = as a=20 Texas limited partnership and one of = AutoNation=92s many Texas dealerships, while other = pleadings state=20 that MBHN is owned by or is an affiliate of AutoNation. Regardless, the non-compete agreement = in issue=20 expressly applies to affiliates of AutoNation, and=20 Hatfield concedes that MBHN is such an affiliate and that the = restrictive=20 covenants here =93were all between Hatfield and AutoNation, together with its subsidiaries and=20 affiliates.=94

^[2]=20 The agreement states:

Except where such agreement is prohibited by = applicable=20 law, Employee hereby agrees that he/she shall not during the period = commencing=20 on the date hereof and ending one year after the date that Employee=92s = employment=20 or engagement with the Company is terminated (for any reason), directly = or=20 indirectly, alone or in any other capacity . . . engage in selling, = leasing, or=20 servicing of any new or used vehicles . . . anywhere (i) within a fifty (50) mile radius of the = dealership or=20 office at which Employee is employed by the Company or a Subsidiary or = Affiliate=20 of the Company or (ii) within a ten (10) mile radius of any new or used = vehicle=20 dealership owned or operated by the Company or any Subsidiary or = Affiliate of=20 the Company located anywhere in the United States . . . .

The agreement also had a provision prohibiting = Hatfield=20 from hiring AutoNation=92s employees or = soliciting its=20 customers for a one-year period after termination.

^[3]=20 The agreement states:

The Agreement will be governed by and = construed in=20 accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, without regard to = principles of=20 conflict of laws. The parties agree that any action, suit or proceeding = arising=20 out of or relative to this Agreement or the relationship of Employee and = Company=20 shall be instituted only in the state or federal courts located in = Broward=20 County, in the [S]tate of Florida, and each = party=20 waives any objection which such party may now or hereafter have to such = venue or=20 jurisdictional court in any action, suit or proceeding.

Hatfield and AutoNation also=20 entered into a Stock Option Agreement in 2001. This agreement contained = a=20 non-compete provision that prohibited Hatfield from hiring AutoNation=92s employees or soliciting its = customers for a=20 one-year period after termination, and also contained Florida = choice-of-law and=20 forum-selection provisions. Hatfield also signed in 2002 a Restrictive = Covenants=20 and Confidentiality Agreement, containing restrictive covenants like = those in=20 the 2003 non-compete agreement, and likewise containing Florida = choice-of-law and=20 forum-selection provisions. The three agreements Hatfield signed all = contained=20 promises on his part not to disclose confidential information and=20 documents.

^[4]=20 The Florida=20 trial court denied Hatfield=92s motion to dismiss for lack of personal=20 jurisdiction. A Florida appellate court has affirmed = the trial=20 court=92s decision. Hatfield v. AutoNation, Inc.,=20 915 So.2d 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. = App. 2005),=20 review denied, 940 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 2006) (table). The trial court = also=20 entered a temporary injunction against Hatfield based on a finding that = he had=20 misappropriated AutoNation=92s trade = secrets. AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, No. = 05-02037,=20 2006 WL 60547 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Jan. 4, = 2006). This=20 order was also affirmed on appeal, and the Florida appellate court noted that =93the = existence of=20 Florida=92s=20 trade secret statute illustrates our state=92s interest in protecting = businesses=20 from theft of confidential information.=94 Hatfield v. AutoNation, Inc., 939 So.2d 155, 158 = (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).

^[5]=20 No. 03-14544 CACE (05), 2003 WL 22852206 (Fla.=20 Cir. Ct. Nov.=20 24, 2003).

^[6] 186 S.W.3d = 576. The=20 court of appeals stayed proceedings in the trial court pending its = decision in=20 the interlocutory appeal. After the court of appeals ruled, we issued a = stay of=20 proceedings in the trial court pending our review of the instant = mandamus=20 action.

^[7]=20 Id. at 578 (quoting Golden = Rule Ins.=20 Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1996)).

^[8]=20 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990).

^[9] 186 S.W.3d at=20 579.

^[10] Id. at 580=9681. As we read = the court of=20 appeals decision, it did not decide whether Texas and Florida law compel = different results as to the enforceability of the non-compete covenant, = but the=20 court did quote language from the trial court=92s injunction order, = stating that=20 =93by litigating in Florida under Florida law, Texas public policy may = be thwarted=20 by obtaining enforcement in Florida of restrictive covenants involving = Texas=20 citizens [and] Texas places of business that would not be enforceable in = Texas.=94=20 Id. at=20 581. We do not reach this question today, but note that our = recent=20 decision in Alex Sheshunoff Management = Services,=20 L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006), modified Texas law = governing=20 the enforceability of non-compete covenants.

^[11] The relief AutoNation seeks by way of mandamus is broader = than the=20 relief from the temporary injunction that was the subject of its = interlocutory=20 appeal to the court of appeals. The interlocutory appeal was=20 necessarily limited to challenging the anti-suit injunction against = litigating=20 the dispute in Florida or elsewhere, = see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. = Code =A7=20 51.014(4), while the mandamus petition to this Court seeks dismissal of = the=20 entire Texas=20 action, or alternatively a stay of the suit. While appeal to the court = of=20 appeals of the temporary injunction order is final absent Supreme Court=20 conflicts or dissent jurisdiction, see Tex. Gov=92t Code =A7 = 22.225(b)(3), (c), we=20 have mandamus jurisdiction in the pending cause regardless of the = finality of=20 the court of appeals=92 ruling in the interlocutory appeal of the = temporary=20 injunction. We are not divested of mandamus jurisdiction because we lack = appellate jurisdiction. See Deloitte & Touche=20 LLP v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 951 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. = 1997).

^[12] 148 S.W.3d 124, 135=9636 = (Tex. = 2004).

^[13] 148 S.W.3d 109, 111=9612 = (Tex. 2004) (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata = Off-Shore=20 Co., 407 U.S. 1, 13, 15 = (1972)).

^[14] Id. at 117.

^[15] Our decision in AIU relied = on the=20 United States Supreme Court=92s conclusion in The M/S Bremen v. = Zapata=20 Off-Shore Co. that the correct approach is to enforce a = forum-selection=20 clause unless the opposing party makes a clear showing that (1) = enforcement=20 would be unreasonable or unjust; (2) the clause is invalid for reasons = such as=20 fraud or overreaching; (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public = policy=20 of the forum where the suit was brought; or (4) =93the contractually = selected=20 forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial.=94 Id. at 112 = (citing M/S=20 Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15=9617). = Hatfield=20 asserts the third factor above.

^[16] Id. at 115.

^[17] 156 S.W.3d 557, 558 (Tex. = 2004).

^[18] Id. at 559.

^[19] See, e.g., BMG Direct = Mktg., Inc.=20 v. Peake, 178 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. = 2005) (noting=20 =93Texas=92s public policy strongly favoring the freedom of parties to = contract=94);=20 In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 129=9630 & n.11 (Tex. 2004)=20 (recognizing that =93parties have the right to contract as they see fit = as long as=20 their agreement does not violate the law or public policy=94); Lawrence v. C.D.B. Servs., Inc., 44 S.W.3d 544, 553 (Tex. 2001) = (=93[W]e have=20 long recognized a strong public policy in favor of preserving the = freedom of=20 contract.=94).

^[20] DeSantis,=20 793 S.W.2d at 681.

^[21] Id.

^[22] Id.

^[23] See Holeman v.=20 Nat=92l Bus. Inst., Inc., 94 S.W.3d 91, 96, 98 (Tex. = App.=97Houston [14th = Dist.] 2002,=20 pet. denied) (refusing to =93abandon the entire body of law governing = the=20 enforceability of forum selection clauses=94 and to =93superimpose the = choice of law=20 analysis of DeSantis onto the law = applicable to=20 forum selection clauses=94).

^[24] Tex. Bus. & Com. Code = =A7=A7=20 15.50=9615.52 (Covenants Not to Compete Act); see also Light v. Centel Cellular Co., 883 S.W.2d 642, 643=9644 = (Tex. = 1994).

^[25] 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. = 2006).

^[26] DeSantis,=20 793 S.W.2d at 679.

^[27] AIU, 148 S.W.3d at 114 = (discussing=20 Texas Insurance Code article 21.42 and former article 21.43 (repealed = by=20 Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. = 1419, =A7=20 31(a), 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 4208)).

^[28] The parties briefed the issue of = whether=20 A-Rod is bound by the forum-selection clauses. Our instant concern is = whether=20 A-Rod can independently pursue this declaratory judgment suit in = Texas even if Hatfield is compelled to litigate = the=20 enforceability of the non-compete agreement = in=20 Florida, or=20 whether instead the entire suit should be dismissed. The one-year period = for the=20 non-compete covenant has now expired. To the extent that A-Rod ever had = standing=20 to challenge the validity of the non-compete = agreement,=20 that challenge is now moot. AutoNation has = asserted no=20 claims against A-Rod in either the Texas or=20 Florida=20 action. The dispute is not moot as to Hatfield, however, as the issue of = damages=20 for alleged breach of the agreement remains. The Florida suit includes a claim for damages = against=20 Hatfield, and as described above the Texas suit has enjoined AutoNation from attempting to enforce the = non-compete agreement.

^[29] Gannon v. Payne, 706 = S.W.2d 304, 306=20 (Tex. 1986)=20 (internal quotation marks omitted).

^[30] E.g., Space Master = Int=92l, Inc. v.=20 Porta-Kamp Mfg. Co., 794 S.W.2d 944, = 946=9647 (Tex.=20 App.=97Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); Alpine Gulf, Inc. v. = Valentino,=20 563 S.W.2d 358, 359=9660 (Tex. App.=97Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, writ = ref=92d n.r.e.); = Evans v.=20 Evans, 186 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex. Civ. = App.=97San=20 Antonio 1945, no writ).

^[31] See supra note = 4.

^[32] See K.D.F. v. Rex, 878 = S.W.2d 589,=20 595 (Tex. 1994) (noting that = =93Texas will extend comity to . . . a cooperative=20 jurisdiction =93so long as that law does not violate Texas public=20 policy=94).