Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall - Case Summary

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 22nd Feb 2024
Wordcount: 578 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This legal case summary was produced by one of our law experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNix.com.

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Summary: A pivotal United States Supreme Court case on personal jurisdiction and the minimum contacts requirement.


Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. (Helicol), a Colombian corporation, operated rescue helicopters. It contracted with Consorcio, a Peruvian consortium, to provide helicopter transportation for a project in Peru (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984). Four American employees of the consortium died in a helicopter crash in Peru. Their survivors sued Helicol in Texas state court, alleging wrongful deaths caused by Helicol's negligence.

Helicol had no place of business or agent in Texas. Its contacts with the state included the CEO’s negotiations in Texas on the contract with Consorcio, purchase of helicopters and equipment from a Texas company, personnel training in Texas, and remittance of checks drawn on a Texas bank.


The issue before the Court was whether such contacts between the defendant, Helicol, and the state of Texas were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby allowing the case to proceed in Texas courts.

The question was whether these activities constituted 'minimum contacts' to satisfy due process requirements for personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.


'Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall' is a key case in the study of personal jurisdiction, specifically in relation to the principle of minimum contacts. It clarified that even substantial purchases and visits for the purposes of securing contracts does not necessarily constitute the necessary contacts to establish jurisdiction.

The decision influenced subsequent case law significantly, with courts examining whether the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.


The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Warren E. Burger, ruled in favor of Helicol, holding that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant without sufficient 'minimum contacts' based on the principles of 'fair play and substantial justice' (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984). The Court further explained that Helicol's contacts with Texas were not substantial enough to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.


  • U.S. Supreme Court. (1984). 'Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall' 466 U.S. 408.

Journalist Brief

In this case, the Supreme Court decided that connections made by a Colombian helicopter company with the state of Texas were not sufficient to allow a lawsuit to proceed in Texas. The court emphasized that businesses must have a significant level of interaction with a state, termed 'minimum contacts', to be sued there. The verdict in this case has helped shape laws about when and where lawsuits can occur.


What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas did not have jurisdiction over the Colombian corporation because it did not have sufficient 'minimum contacts' within Texas.

What does 'minimum contacts' mean?

Answer: 'Minimum contacts' refers to a legal standard that ensures a non-resident defendant has sufficient ties with the forum state for the court to exercise jurisdiction over them.

How has this case influenced law?

Answer: This case has become a cornerstone in the legal standard of personal jurisdiction and it further refined the 'minimum contacts' principle.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider