Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For City and County of Denver
| Decision Date | 16 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 23674,23674 |
| Citation | 448 P.2d 783,167 Colo. 456 |
| Parties | SAFARI OUTFITTERS, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, State of Colorado, the Honorable Charles E. Bennett, and Lloyd Powers, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Davis, Graham & Stubbs, David M. Ebel, Denver, for petitioner.
V. G. Seavy, Jr., Denver, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in which Safari Outfitters, Inc., hereinafter called petitioner, requests that this Court issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the Denver Superior Court, hereinafter called respondent, from exercising In personam jurisdiction over it pursuant to Colorado's 'long-arm' statute, 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 37--1--26, and 37--1--27.
In a complaint filed in the respondent court, Lloyd Powers alleged that petitioner had breached a contract to arrange an African safari for him, and that he had suffered damages in the sum of $3,600. Petitioner was personally served with a summons and complaint in Chicago. Through its Denver counsel, petitioner appeared specially in the respondent court and filed its motion to quash service. The motion having been denied, petitioner sought a writ of prohibition from this Court, and we issued a rule to the respondent court, the judge thereof and Lloyd Powers to show cause why the relief should not be granted.
Petitioner contends that the asserted jurisdiction (a) is not authorized by the 'long-arm' statute, and (b) is in violation of the constitutional guaranty of due process. We agree and therefore make the rule absolute.
Following the lead of several other states, in 1965 our legislature subjected any person who engages in '(t)he transaction of any business within this state' to the jurisdiction of our courts. Once subject to jurisdiction, the defendant may be served personally with a summons outside the state. 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 37--1--26, and 37--1--27.
By enacting the latter statutes, our legislature intended to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. See Agrashall, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Company, 2 Cir., 344 F.2d 583.
Due process requires that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment In personam, if he is not within the forum state, he must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057; White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court, 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527; and Bolger v. Dial-A-Style Leasing Corporation, 159 Colo. 44, 409 P.2d 517. But Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283.
With the general principles above set forth in mind, we review the record. The affidavits and exhibits before us disclose that the petitioner advertised in three nationally distributed sportsmen's magazines in each of several months from 1966 to 1968. Responding to one of the advertisements, which he saw in a magazine delivered to his Denver home, Lloyd Powers wrote to inquire further of petitioner, which has offices in Chicago. Petitioner mailed brochures and a newsletter to Powers. At least one interstate telephone call was made. Thereafter numerous communications were made by interstate mail; some sixteen letters appear in the record as exhibits, most of them addressed to Powers at his Denver residence. There are also copies in the record of three checks, totalling over $10,000, drawn on a Denver bank by Powers, and made payable to petitioner, who accepted them as payment for his services. Moreover, petitioner mailed numerous tickets, itineraries, brochures, passports and other documents to Powers in Denver.
There is no dispute regarding the facts just summarized. Therefore the question which we must resolve is whether, on these particular facts, jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible pursuant to the terms of our 'long-arm' statute. We answer that question in the negative.
Advertising in national magazines distributed within the forum state does not alone constitute a transaction of business within that state. See Bolger v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruggieri v. General Well Service, Inc.
...Francaise des Pneumatiques Michelin v. District Court, Colo., 620 P.2d 1040, 1044 (1980); Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 459, 448 P.2d 783, 784 (1968). This court may therefore assert personal jurisdiction in diversity cases whenever proper under due Although the ......
-
Green v. Wilson
...Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 389, 143 N.E.2d 673 (1957).8 Scoles & Hays, n. 6 supra; Casad, n. 3 supra.9 See, e.g., Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 459, 448 P.2d 783 (1969); Larsen v. Scholl, 296 N.W.2d 785, 788, (Iowa, 1980); Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 285 Minn. 77, 96,......
-
Wise v. Lindamood
...620 P.2d 5, 8 (Colo.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 960, 101 S.Ct. 3108, 69 L.Ed.2d 971 (1981)); see Safari Outfitters of Denver v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1968) (Colorado's long-arm statute is construed liberally so as to allow jurisdiction to the full extent permitted b......
-
Mouzavires v. Baxter
...social policies. [444 U.S. at 291-92, 100 S.Ct. at 564-565 (citations omitted).] 10. But see Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1969) (en banc) (contract negotiated over telephone and through the mails provided insufficient contacts with 11. The Illinois......
-
Foreign Savings and Loan Associations Not Doing Business in Colorado
...v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 290, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564-66, 62 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). See, CRS § 13-1-124; Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 448 P.2d 783, 784 (Colo. 1969); Norton v. Dartmouth Skis, 364 P.2d 866, 867 (Colo. 1961); Begole Aircraft Supplies, Inc. v. Pacific Airmotive Corp., 212 P......
-
Long Arm Jurisdiction in Colorado
...486 (1970). 10. T. L. Smith Co. v. District Court, 163 Colo. 444, 431 P.2d 454 (1967). 11. Id. 12. 162 Colo. 14, 424 P.2d 110 (1967). 13. 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1969). 14. ___ Colo. ___, 508 P.2d 374 (1973). 15. White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court, supra note 6. 16. White-Rodgers Co. ......
-
Pleading and Challenging Long Arm Jurisdiction in the Colorado Courts
...Texair Flyers, Inc. v. District Court, 180 Colo. 432, 506 P.2d 367 (1973) (tortious conduct); Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. District Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783 (1968) (transaction of business). 3. C.R.S. 1973, § 13-1-124. 4. Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. District Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448......
-
Websites and Jurisdiction
...P.2d 954 (Colo.App. 1999) at 957. See also Scheuer v. District Court, 684 P.2d 249 (Colo.1984); Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 448 P.2d 783, (Colo. 1968). This is not universally true, however, as some states (most notably New York) have interpreted their long-arm statutes as be......