This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Rational: Although the helicopter company purchased equipment from texas before, that alone cannot be deemed as minimum contact. This is similar to the case of Rosenberg v. Curtis Brown, where Rosenburg went to NY sometimes to purchase shoe equipment. Purchasing, even if it is systematic, does not make them submit their personal jurisdiction. Holding: Texas does not have personal jurisdiction over the helicopter company in Peru Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Justice Brennan dissents he states that, there was sufficient contacts between the state and the company because the helicopters responsibility was made in Texas. They purchase the helicopter there, their worker was trained there, the helicopter company is responsible for any negligence that the pilot makes. They signed a specific agreement as to, the helicopter company being the exclusive transportation unit for the company to peru there. In his mind, there was sufficient contact and it was of fairness....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CIV PRO 141 taught by Professor Daucher during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .
- Fall '11