Columbia has sent and received checks to and from Minnesota. See State by Humphrey v.Columbia Pac. Univ., 357 N.W.2d 359, 361-62 (Minn.App. 1985), reviewdenied (Minn., Feb. 15, 1985) (holding that sufficient minimum contacts existed when a nonresident university: advertised in national publications that it knew would be distributed in Minnesota; entered into contracts with Minnesota residents; communicated with Minnesota residents about those contacts on a regular basis; and sent and received checks to and from Minnesota). In sum, there is no question but that the nature and quality of Columbia's contacts with Minnesota would support the exercise of jurisdiction.
Id. at 99. In State by Humphrey v. Columbia Pacific University, 357 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), we held the nonresident university, by promoting its educational program in Minnesota, invoked the benefits and protections of Minnesota's laws. As a result, it purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to do business in Minnesota and should have reasonably anticipated that its acts would have consequences in Minnesota. Id. at 362.
See BLC Insurance Co. v. Westin, Inc., 359 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Apr. 15, 1985), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 132, 88 L.Ed.2d 109 (1985) (minimum contacts exist where defendant bar "actively solicited Minnesota customers" by advertising "extensively in Minnesota * * * through as many as 15 [radio] commercials per week, each commercial about 30 seconds in length, costing approximately $23,000"); State by Humphrey v. Columbia Pacific University, 357 N.W.2d 359 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 15, 1985) (sufficient minimum contacts existed when nonresident university was shown to have advertised in national publications it knew would likely be distributed in Minnesota, entered into contracts with Minnesota residents which required continual communication between those residents and the university, received tuition payments made from Minnesota, and sent paychecks to Minnesota faculty members).
Rostad v. On-Deck, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 95 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). State v. Columbia Pacific University, 357 N.W.2d 359 (Minn.Ct.App., 1984), in which we granted jurisdiction, is distinguishable from the case before us because the university had resident faculty in Minnesota. Here, a decisive fact is that Johnson never advertised in Minnesota newspapers after he purchased the bar.