Legal Opinion · Dissent
Tercero v. ROMAN CATH. DIOCESE OF NORWICH
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided May 23, 2002No. 25,618Published
1DissentMinzner, Justice
{30} I respectfully dissent. In holding that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Diocese of Norwich, I believe the majority has taken a more restrictive view of jurisdiction than our cases require on these facts. For the following reasons, I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
{31} Because both the “transaction of business” and “tortious activity” strands of long-arm jurisdiction have been conflated with the due process inquiry in New Mexico,' see Majority Opinion ¶¶ 7-8, I am not certain that we need to examine them separately from each other or the ultimate constitutional…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Max W. Forsythe, Helen H. Forsythe, E. Bush Hayden and Jean Mulliken v. D. H. OvermyerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. HiattNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.