Heading: Hall v. Helicopteros Nacionales De Columbia, S.A., 638 S.W.2d 870 (1982) p62.
Facts: - D, a Colombian entity, bought supplies and helicopters extensively in Texas but did not maintain any offices in the state.
- P had
Procedure: P sued in a Texas Supreme court. The exercise of jurisdiction was upheld. Later the Supreme Court heard the case.
Issue: Did the state of Texas have jurisdiction over the Colombian company based on the amount and type of contact it had with citizens of Texas? Given the fact that it is a non resident of Texas being sued in Texas and cause of action did not arise in Texas.
Rule: The non-resident’s presence in the state through numerous contacts was enough to satisfy the demands of the ultimate test of due process.
Holding: Texas did have jurisdiction.
Rationale: There were enough contacts with Texas by D to justify jurisdiction. The only real question is: is the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of due process of law under the US Constitution? The answer in this case is yes.
Policy/Notes: Justice Pope dissented on grounds that both Texas statute and due process prohibited jurisdiction.
Heading: Helicopteros Nacionales De Columbia, S.A v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) p 67.
Facts: - D, a Colombian entity, bought supplies and helicopters extensively in Texas but did not maintain any offices in the state.
Procedure: P sued in a Texas Supreme court. The exercise of jurisdiction was upheld. Later the Supreme Court heard the case. The SC reversed the decision of the Texas Supreme Court.
Issue: Did the state of Texas have jurisdiction over the Colombian company based on the amount and type of contact it had with citizens of Texas? Was the due process clause violated by the Texas Supreme Court decision which found jurisdiction?
Rule: When contacts are made that do not fulfill the requirements of and continuous systematic business, the state cannot claim jurisdiction.
Holding: Texas had no jurisdiction over this Colombian company.
Rationale: The jurisdiction Texas has claimed is found to be general. This means jurisdiction can only be supported by "continuous and systematic" contacts. Purchases from Texas, although frequent do not satisfy these demands.
Policy/Notes: Brennan dissented: D obtained numerous benefits from the transaction of business in Texas and it is reasonably fair to expect it should face obligations that attach to its participation in such commercial transactions. Also Brennan doubted the finding this case was one of general jurisdiction.