Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall

Last updated
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 8, 1983
Decided April 24, 1984
Full case nameHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, et al.
Citations466 U.S. 408 ( more )
104 S. Ct. 1868; 80 L. Ed. 2d 404; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 68; 52 U.S.L.W. 4491
Case history
Prior616 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981); reversed, 638 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 1982); cert. granted, 460 U.S. 1021(1983).
Holding
Purchases in the United States by an out of state corporation did not establish the "minimum contacts" necessary for personal jurisdiction.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, White, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
DissentBrennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), was an American case decided by the United States Supreme Court, holding that purchases in the United States by an out-of-state corporation did not establish general personal jurisdiction.

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, a Colombian corporation, purchased a majority of its helicopters and training for said helicopters in Texas. They provide helicopter transport for oil and construction companies in South America. The incident in question happened on Jan 26, 1976 when a helicopter crashed killing four Americans. In the contract, which was negotiated in Houston, that the plaintiffs had with the defendants there was a choice of location clause which stated that all controversies would be submitted to Peruvian courts. [1]

The Court concluded that Texas did not have jurisdiction over Helicopteros. While they did engage in business-related activates, these activities did not rise to the level of "continuous and systematic" contacts for the courts to have general jurisdiction. [1]

Related Research Articles

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases.

William J. Brennan Jr. United States Supreme Court justice

William Joseph Brennan Jr. was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990. He was the seventh-longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, and known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), is a United States corporate law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that a defendant's ownership of stock in a corporation incorporated within a state, without more, is insufficient to allow that state courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The case set forth a framework for evaluating when a defendant will be deemed to have minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Minimum contacts

Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". A non-resident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum state if they 1) have direct contact with the state; 2) have a contract with a resident of the state; 3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state; 4) seek to serve residents of the forum state; 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or 6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.

Ruby Kless Sondock is a former Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. She was the first woman to serve on the Texas Supreme Court.

Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.

Helicol S.A. is a helicopter operator based at El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá, Colombia. It is a subsidiary airline of Avianca.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the term "based upon a commercial activity" within the meaning of the first clause of 1605(a)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), was a product disparagement case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held, on a 6–3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly concluded that Bose had not presented proof of actual malice.

Federal enclave Parcel of land which is within a state but under federal jurisdiction

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States". In 1960, the year of the latest comprehensive inquiry, 7% of federal property had enclave status. Of the land with federal enclave status, 57% was under "concurrent" state jurisdiction. The remaining 43%, on which some state laws do not apply, was scattered almost at random throughout the United States. In 1960, there were about 5,000 enclaves, with about one million people living on them. While a comprehensive inquiry has not been performed since 1960, these statistics are likely much lower today, since many federal enclaves were military bases that have been closed and transferred out of federal ownership.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless either the United States Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty is explicitly "self-executing". The Court also held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by President of the United States without authority from Congress or the United States Constitution.

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Indian country jurisdiction in the United States that decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries. Therefore, reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through acts of Congress.

Attaway v. Omega, 903 N.E.2d 73, was a decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals in which the Court found personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who bought a car on eBay then rescinded payment.

<i>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</i> Case in American intellectual property law

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. It is part of a group of six cases decided since 2011 that have greatly changed the application of personal jurisdiction. It was criticized by legal scholars for favoring corporations, and not solving the underlying vagaries of the law.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

References

  1. 1 2 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).