Procedure Class Notes
happening? Where are we? Washington Equipment is in
Equipment sues in
How come this isn’t a case of specific jurisdiction? What is Washington Equipment suing for? It’s a breach of contract.
does Washington Equipment’s cause of action relate to the state of
Specific jurisdiction is the easy route; general jurisdiction is the hard route. The procedural posture below tells us something about the issues in the present case.
you have general jurisdiction over Concrete Placing, you may sue them in the
the appeals court says that there is no general jurisdiction over Concrete
What if the legislature did have intent? Would such a statute be constitutional? Would it offend notions of fair play and substantial justice?
General jurisdiction is usually easy! It’s hard to find hard cases on general jurisdiction.
You must have more of a relationship with a forum to constitute general jurisdiction than to be subject to specific jurisdiction.
Think of general jurisdiction as “super contacts”.
The result of this case is right, however, the court’s explanation is wrong. That’s part of why the case is in the book. The case is wrong, wrong, wrong though with the right result.
Yeazell dislikes the next case. He didn’t include it.
We’re in Peru. We’re doing oil stuff. Helicol is in Colombia. Consorcio is the “alter ego” of some companies in the U.S. Helicol has a relationship with Texas.
The CEO of Helicol
negotiated a contract in
Helicol bought helicopters from
Helicol’s pilots trained in
· Helicol paid with checks from a Houston Bank.
decedents file suit in
Helicol makes a special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction. The trial court says noooo…we
have personal jurisdiction over you!
What about the other defendants? Consorcio and
Helicol loses and is found liable to the tune of about $1,000,000.
Having made the special appearance, Helicol can’t appeal the jurisdictional issue until the trial is complete. They do!
Texas Court of Appeals reverses the trial court, saying Helicol
isn’t subject to
the United States Supreme Court ends up reversing and saying that
big question: why isn’t this a case of specific
jurisdiction? These are the helicopters
that they bought in
practical reason that they don’t argue for specific jurisdiction is that the parties
allegedly waived it. That’s unbelievable. The parties concede that Helicol’s
contact were not related or did not arise out of Helicol’s activities in
What does the record of the oral argument show? Counsel seems to have retreated to general jurisdiction through a “Perkins”-style argument, which is to say, they claim “systematic and continuous contacts” with the forum state.
Perkins v. Benguet
is a case that arose out of World War II.
While the Japanese were occupying the
Blackmun looks at the contacts individually and determines that each one in isolation is not continuous and systematic. Fairman suggests that he should have looked at the contacts in toto.
Blackmun says that one visit doesn’t constitute minimum contacts. He says that buying stuff is not enough,
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.
defendant in this case was located in
Brennan objects: this case is from 1923! It’s old!
about the pilots? Blackmun
says that’s it’s part of the package of the
helicopters and training, so, citing
about the bank checks? You’re not likely
to get general jurisdiction over writing
We’re got crap! Nothing left to support jurisdiction at all. Therefore, there’s no jurisdiction.
Fairman is troubled by the way Blackmun does this. He creates a framework for how to look at contacts in the future.
Here’s the problem: you can look at the contacts apart or together, and depending on how you do it, you’ll get to a different result.
Tomorrow, we will start with two thoughtful questions and go over Burnham.