Legal Opinion · Dissent

M.R. v. Serenicare Funeral Home, L.L.C.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided October 24, 2012No. 33,920; Docket 30,879Published

1DissentGarcia, Judge

{32} I respectfully dissent in this case. The tortious injury asserted in this case was suffered as a result of SereniCare’s business services that it provided as part of a specific multi-party transaction in interstate commerce. As a result, minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction must be addressed in the context of an interstate commercial transaction, similar to the recent analysis by this Court in Sproul, 2012-NMCA- __, ¶¶ 16-26 (recognizing the interstate commerce analysis for personal jurisdiction, also known as the stream of commerce rule established under World-Wide Volkswagen).…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Visarraga v. Gates Rubber Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Bergherr v. SommerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Hollinger v. SifersMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API