is situated. See, e.g., Crawford v. Silette, 608 F.3d 275, 277-78 (5th Cir.2010). 7 . Peter Paul asserts that "[t]he Texas Supreme Court has already rejected an attempt to apply the local action rule to a case just like this,” citing Smith v. Hall, 147 Tex. 634, 219 S.W.2d 441, 444 (1949). According to Peter Paul, "Smith rightly holds that the local action rule does not apply to 'a suit for specific performance of a contract to convey an interest in land, or for Cir.2010) ("The local action doctrine holds that ‘federal and state courts lack jurisdiction over the subject-matter of claims to land located outside the state in which the court sits.' ") (citing Hayes v. Gulf Oil Corp., 821 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir.1987)); Tex. & P. Ry. Co. v. Gay, 86 Tex. 571, 26 S.W. 599, 607-09 (Tex.1894) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 167 U.S. 745, 17 S.Ct. 1000, 42 L.Ed.
holding that louisiana courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate possession of land situated in texas and stating it has sometimes been stated that the principles thus announced furnished simply a technical rule in reference to venue and that they had no bearing on the more substantial question of jurisdiction but the language of the great judge is not susceptible of such a construction recognizing the same rule in texas courts holding that the contract language the courts of texas usa shall have jurisdiction precluded federal jurisdiction by explaining that flederal district courts may be in texas but they are not of texas emphasis in original holding that the decision not to remove materials during canal construction was based not on policy judgments but on technical scientific engineering considerations and thus is not susceptible to policy considerations holding that the improper appointment of a judge to a case deprived the court of jurisdiction to rule on any motions pending before that judge the orders entered by that judge were entered without jurisdiction of the court and were thus void