{
  "id": 708565,
  "name": "Jimmy SALAS, d/b/a Zuni Woodyard and Landscape Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOMESTAKE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Salas v. Homestake Enterprises Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 16987",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "345",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.M. 344"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "742 P.2d 1049"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "471 U.S. 462",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6205101
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "476"
        },
        {
          "page": "2184"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in the light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.' \""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/471/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 U.S. 457",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141572
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        },
        {
          "page": "342"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/311/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 U.S. 310",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6157001
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1945,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)"
        },
        {
          "page": "158",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/326/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.M. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580006
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/102/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "717 P.2d 590",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.M. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.M. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1594946
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/104/0143-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 4412,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5003681034182802e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6655444004650464
    },
    "sha256": "cead244fc928f4293e52aa5785c2e2149db162aebb6f2e8260d508d64ecf1503",
    "simhash": "1:7f5cef67ec86156a",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:22.270695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "STOWERS and WALTERS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Jimmy SALAS, d/b/a Zuni Woodyard and Landscape Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOMESTAKE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSCARBOROUGH, Chief Justice.\nJimmy Salas (plaintiff) filed an action in district court alleging that Homestake Enterprises, Inc. (defendant) breached a contract. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court granted defendant\u2019s motion. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.\nKevin Moore (an agent of defendant) telephoned plaintiff from Colorado to inform him that defendant had some railroad ties for sale. Moore requested that plaintiff come to Colorado to look at the ties and enter into negotiations. Plaintiff went to Colorado, inspected the ties, and alleges that he entered into a contract with defendant. Plaintiff then went back to New Mexico and started to fulfill what he considered to be his contractual obligations. Defendant soon afterwards sent two documents to plaintiff. Defendant subsequently telephoned plaintiff to inform him that no contract existed, and that no railroad ties were available for sale. This lawsuit ensued.\nThe only issue before us is whether defendant\u2019s acts warrant the assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendant by New Mexico.\nTo vest New Mexico courts with personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, non-resident defendant, the act complained of must meet a three-prong test: (1) the act must be enumerated in the long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-l-16(A) (Repl. Pamp.1987); (2) plaintiff\u2019s cause of action must arise from the act, NMSA 1978, Section 38-l-16(C) (Repl.Pamp.1987); and (3) the act(s) of defendant must establish the minimum contacts necessary to satisfy due process. Visarraga v. Gates Rubber Co., 104 N.M. 143, 717 P.2d 596 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 104 N.M. 137, 717 P.2d 590 (1986).\nPlaintiff claims that defendant \u201ctransacted business\u201d in New Mexico and thus performed an act enumerated in the long-arm statute. See NMSA 1978, Section 38-l-16(A)(l). Defendant\u2019s telephone call, however, was merely an invitation to come to Colorado and negotiate, it was not a business transaction. Neither did sending two documents to plaintiff constitute a business transaction. Since defendant did not transact business in New Mexico, the requirement of the long-arm statute is not satisfied. Therefore, New Mexico courts lack personal jurisdiction over defendant.\nPlaintiff argues that defendant\u2019s acts created sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to warrant the assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendant. In making this argument, plaintiff relies on the fact that the \u201ctransacted business\u201d requirement of the long-arm statute has been construed to reach as far as due process allows. See Customwood Mfg., Inc., v. Downey Constr. Co., 102 N.M. 56, 691 P.2d 57 (1984). Due process considerations, however, likewise preclude New Mexico from asserting jurisdiction over defendant. The fundamental inquiry in minimum contacts/due process analysis is whether a particular state\u2019s assertion of jurisdiction comports with \u201c \u2018traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)); cf. Burger King Cory. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (\u201cOnce it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in the light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with \u2018fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d). It would offend this Court\u2019s conception of fair play and substantial justice to subject defendant to suit in New Mexico where defendant\u2019s only contact with New Mexico was mailing two documents and making a telephone call into the state, and where these contacts arose in the context of an essentially Colorado transaction.\nNew Mexico courts lack personal jurisdiction over defendant, therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSTOWERS and WALTERS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SCARBOROUGH, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John R. Polk, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Randal W. Roberts, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee ."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "742 P.2d 1049\nJimmy SALAS, d/b/a Zuni Woodyard and Landscape Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOMESTAKE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 16987.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 16, 1987.\nRehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1987.\nJohn R. Polk, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nRandal W. Roberts, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee ."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}