| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | A Helicol chopper crashes in Peru, and 4 US folks die. The dead dudes
were employed by Consorcio, a Peruvian joint venture formed by
Texans to construct a Peruvian oil pipeline. Consorcio contracts
with Helicol for transport; the contract is in Spanish on Peruvian
government stationary and has a Peruvian choice-of-law clause. It
specifies that Consorcio will pay Helico by depositing into a BofA
account in NY.
Helicol buys helicopters from TX. It sent pilots there for training. And management and maintenance people also. |
| Posture: | Suit in TX state court, apparently. |
| Issue: | Do Helicol's contacts with TX suffice for the exercise of personal jurisdiction? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed. |
| Rule: | Mere purchases, even regular ones, are not enough if the cause of action isn't related to the purchase transactions. |
| Reasoning: | These claims don't "arise out of" Helicol's TX activities. |
| Dicta: | Brennan, dissenting: actually this was sufficient. |