Tarango v. Pastrana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even if the defendants committed a tort in New Mexico, the trial court still lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they lacked minimum contacts with this State
• recognizing that “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conduction activities within the forum [s]tate”
• stating that the question of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants involves more than the technical “ ‘transaction of any business’ ” or the technical “ ‘commission of a tortious act’ ” within New Mexico
• meaning of terms \transaction of any business\ and \commission of a tortious act\ to be equated with minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy due process
• meaning of terms “transaction of any business” and “commission of a tortious act” to be equated with minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy due process
• “[I]t would be neither fair nor just to subject defendants to in personam jurisdiction on the basis that statements for payment of services rendered in Texas were mailed to plaintiffs in New Mexico.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).