Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp.

Tenth Circuit

Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp.

364 F.2d 991

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 1966

DocketNo. 8287

StatusPublished

This text of 364 F.2d 991 (Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether at the time of the attempted service of summons on an employee of the appellee foreign corporation, it was doing business in the State of Colorado, hence amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of that State.

Following applicable Colorado law, and distinguishing this case from Focht v. Southwestern Skyways, Inc., D.C., 220 F.Supp. 441, affm’d 10 Cir., 336 F.2d 603, the trial court held that the activities of the employee on which attempted service was made were quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient to meet the test of “minimum contacts” so as to constitute doing business in the state.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in its opinion. 257 F.Supp. 537.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether at the time of the attempted service of summons on an employee of the appellee foreign corporation, it was doing business in the State of Colorado, hence amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of that State.

Following applicable Colorado law, and distinguishing this case from Focht v. Southwestern Skyways, Inc., D.C., 220 F.Supp. 441, affm’d 10 Cir., 336 F.2d 603, the trial court held that the activities of the employee on which attempted service was made were quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient to meet the test of “minimum contacts” so as to constitute doing business in the state.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in its opinion. 257 F.Supp. 537.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 F.2d 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-edwards-engineering-corp-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack