HELICOPTEROS NACIONALES DE COLOMBIA, S.A. v. HALL
United States Supreme Court, 1984.
466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404.
Facts: Petitioner Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia is a Colombian corporation. Consorcio is a Peruvian consortium, part of a joint venture named Williams-Sedco-Horn (WSH) headquartered out of Houston, Tex. The consortium had been created to construct a pipeline for Petro Peru. Peruvian law forbade construction of the pipeline by any non-Peruvian entity.
Consorcio needed helicopters to transfer their people during the construction. CEO of Helico flew to United States to confer with representatives of WSH and Consorcio about providing them with this service. The contract agreement, eventually, was officially signed in Peru. It stated that controversies arising out of the contract would be submitted to the jurisdiction of Peruvian courts.
Over a year after the contract started a Helio helicopter crashed in Peru. Four United States citizens were among those who lost their lives in the accident. Respondents are the survivors and representatives of the four. Respondents originally instituted wrongful-death actions in the District Court of Harris County., Tex against Consorcio/WSH, Bell Helicopter Company, and Helicol. Helicol filed special appearances and moved to dismiss the actions for lack of in personam jurisdiction over them.
Procedure: Trial court denied Helico’s motion, jury verdict was returned for $1,141,200 for respondents. Texas Supreme Court affirmed this decision. Helio appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Issue: Are Helico’s contacts with the State of Texas sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause?
Held: No
Analysis: Court cites International Shoe Co. v. Washington’s two part test, “Due process requirements are satisfied when in personam jurisdiction is asserted over a nonresident corporate defendant the has ‘certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.â€
Court cites Shaffer v. Heitner stating that the relationship among the defendant, forum, and litigation is the essential foundation of in personam jurisdiction. The defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be systematic and continuous.
Court cites Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923) makes clear that purchases and related trips, standing alone, are not a sufficient basis for a State’s assertion of jurisdiction.
Decision reversed.
United States Supreme Court, 1984.
466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404.
Facts: Petitioner Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia is a Colombian corporation. Consorcio is a Peruvian consortium, part of a joint venture named Williams-Sedco-Horn (WSH) headquartered out of Houston, Tex. The consortium had been created to construct a pipeline for Petro Peru. Peruvian law forbade construction of the pipeline by any non-Peruvian entity.
Consorcio needed helicopters to transfer their people during the construction. CEO of Helico flew to United States to confer with representatives of WSH and Consorcio about providing them with this service. The contract agreement, eventually, was officially signed in Peru. It stated that controversies arising out of the contract would be submitted to the jurisdiction of Peruvian courts.
Over a year after the contract started a Helio helicopter crashed in Peru. Four United States citizens were among those who lost their lives in the accident. Respondents are the survivors and representatives of the four. Respondents originally instituted wrongful-death actions in the District Court of Harris County., Tex against Consorcio/WSH, Bell Helicopter Company, and Helicol. Helicol filed special appearances and moved to dismiss the actions for lack of in personam jurisdiction over them.
Procedure: Trial court denied Helico’s motion, jury verdict was returned for $1,141,200 for respondents. Texas Supreme Court affirmed this decision. Helio appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Issue: Are Helico’s contacts with the State of Texas sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause?
Held: No
Analysis: Court cites International Shoe Co. v. Washington’s two part test, “Due process requirements are satisfied when in personam jurisdiction is asserted over a nonresident corporate defendant the has ‘certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.â€
Court cites Shaffer v. Heitner stating that the relationship among the defendant, forum, and litigation is the essential foundation of in personam jurisdiction. The defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be systematic and continuous.
Court cites Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923) makes clear that purchases and related trips, standing alone, are not a sufficient basis for a State’s assertion of jurisdiction.
Decision reversed.