Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts
International Shoe Co. (D, appellant) was a Delaware corporation with its principle place
of business in Missouri. It had no offices in the state of Washington and made no
contracts for sale there. International Shoe did not keep merchandise in Washington and
did not make deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce originating from the state.
International Shoe employed 11-13 salesmen for 3 years who resided in Washington.
Their commissions each year totaled more than $31,000 and International Shoe
reimbursed them for expenses. Prices, terms, and acceptance or rejection of footwear
orders were established through St. Louis. Salesmen did not have authority to make
contracts or collections.
The state of Washington brought suit against International Shoe in Washington State
court to recover unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. Notice
was served personally on an agent of the defendant within the state and by registered mail
to HQ in Missouri. State agency was first to decide anything in the case (that D is liable).
Administrative appeal and finally the Supreme Court of Washington held that the state
had jurisdiction to hear the case and International Shoe appealed.
Issue
• Yes. Minimum contacts with the forum state can enable a court in that state to
exert personal jurisdiction over a party consistent with the Due Process clause.
Relevant factors
International Shoe had conducted “systematic and continuous” business operations in
Washington. A large volume of interstate business for the defendant was created through
it’s agents within the state and the corporation received the benefits and protection of
Washington’s laws. International Shoe had established agents in the state permanently.
Disposition
Concurring/Dissent- Concurring, by Justice Black, who strongly stated that the 14th
Amendment and Due Process is being wrongfully used to restrict States’ powers,
including to tax.