382:
corporation render it amenable to suit in courts of the State to recover payments due to the state unemployment compensation fund. The activities in question established sufficient contacts or ties between the State and the corporation to make it reasonable and just, and in conformity to the due process requirements of the
Fourteenth Amendment, for the State to enforce against the corporation an obligation arising out of such activities. In such a suit to recover payments due to the unemployment compensation fund, service of process upon one of the corporation's salesmen within the State, and notice sent by registered mail to the corporation at its home office, satisfies the requirements of due process. The tax imposed by the state unemployment compensation statute—construed by the state court, in its application to the corporation, as a tax on the privilege of employing salesmen within the State—does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In reaching its decision the Court stated that throughout
358:
31:
326:. The salesmen were residents of that state and they met with prospective customers in motels and hotels, and occasionally rented space to put up displays. The company thus had no permanent "situs" of business in the State. Each year, the salesmen brought in about $ 31,000 in compensation. International Shoe's solicitation system allegedly was set up explicitly to avoid establishing the situs of the business in other states insofar as the salesmen did not have offices, did not negotiate prices, and sent all orders back to Missouri; shipments from the plant to customers were sent
421:, the Court's majority chose to create a new doctrine, while still adhering to a "presence" rationale. The basic formulation is: a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, so long as that defendant has "sufficient minimum contacts" with the forum state, from which the complaint arises, such that the exercise of jurisdiction "will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice . . ." See 326 U.S. 310 (1940).
526:
410:
over defendant corporation. Initially the courts followed a strict interpretation of territorial jurisdiction, where states only had power over property or defendants who were actually present in the state (excepting corporations or residents). Defendants wishing to avoid claims could abscond to other jurisdictions without fear of suit.
395:
has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does
433:
It was and remains a broad doctrine. It eventually allowed states to create "long arm" statutes and responded to the actualities of the national market of the United States. Defendants had often avoided legal responsibilities by "scampering" from the state of occurrence and not being available for
424:
The court broke down the types of contact that a defendant can have with a state into "casual" contact and "systematic and continuous" contact. In cases with only casual contact, the claim must be related to the contact in order for the state to have jurisdiction. Casual contact is not a basis for
409:
A growing body of
Supreme Court precedent and incremental statutory and common law doctrines related to personal jurisdiction had been evolving over a period of several decades from the late 19th century through the early 20th century, and the Supreme Court therefore could have upheld jurisdiction
381:
law requiring payments to an unemployment fund on the ground that he is engaged in interstate commerce) the fact that the corporation is engaged in interstate commerce does not relieve it from liability for payments to the state unemployment compensation fund. The activities in behalf of the
413:
As the doctrine of personal jurisdiction evolved with additional cases directed to related subject matter, the
Supreme Court expanded jurisdiction to anyone who tacitly "consented" to jurisdiction (in that case, a defendant consented to jurisdiction by merely driving on a Massachusetts state
349:"person." However, the trial court ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation. This ruling was upheld in the appeal tribunal, the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court of Washington. International Shoe Co. then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
414:
highway). These doctrines were built upon the expanding legal fiction of "presence" within the forum state or the defendant's commission of an act or failure to act within the forum state. (A "forum state" means the state in whose courts a case is being litigated.)
104:
Special appearance by appellant in
Washington state court as defendant in lower court; appellant moved to set aside order on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction; tribunal denied motion; state Superior Court affirmed; state Supreme Court
293:
therein with the stated legislative purpose of providing a fund to be used for financial assistance to newly unemployed workers in the state. The tax was in effect a mandatory contribution to the state's
Unemployment Compensation Fund. The
368:
The issue involved a determination of the level of connection that must exist between a non-resident corporation and a state in order for that corporation to be sued within that state. The
Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice
390:
has been grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence, his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. But now that the
244:
in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. The ruling has important consequences for
400:
wrote a separate opinion, agreeing with the outcome in this case, but contending that the Court has excessively restricted the power of states to find jurisdiction over companies doing business therein.
115:
Suit cannot be brought against an individual unless they have minimum contacts with the forum state, and such lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
622:
341:
on one of their salesmen with a notice of assessment. Washington also sent a letter by registered mail to their place of business in
Missouri. International Shoe made a
439:
222:
607:
541:
501:
459:
237:
72:
438:. This case changed that to some extent, though the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" are drawn from the Due Process Clause of the
530:
602:
464:
377:
did not participate), held that in view of 26 U.S.C. § 1606(a) (providing that no person shall be relieved from compliance with a
612:
587:
425:
bringing unrelated claims. Systematic and continuous contact allows for both claims related to the contact and unrelated claims.
241:
35:
627:
450:. The doctrine of International Shoe is broad, but the Court has recognized that it has limits, nevertheless.
357:
54:
International Shoe
Company v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation & Placement, et al.
579:
570:
299:
342:
323:
250:
307:
617:
392:
374:
545:
505:
258:
174:
64:
552:
8:
146:
337:
International Shoe Co. did not pay the tax at issue in this case, so the state effected
561:
508:
435:
370:
338:
278:
254:
182:
158:
257:
of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the sufficiency of service of process, and, especially,
170:
150:
470:
345:
before the office of unemployment to dispute the state's jurisdiction over it as a
67:
477:
362:
130:
327:
596:
396:
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Justice
383:
246:
162:
387:
346:
397:
378:
274:
138:
83:
443:
295:
286:
270:
199:
Stone, joined by Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge, Burton
319:
315:
311:
290:
525:
212:
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
447:
303:
318:. The corporation had maintained for some time a staff of 11-13
87:
79:
30:
588:
International Shoe Co. v. Washington Case Brief at Lawnix.com
225:; 26 U.S.C. § 1606; Washington Unemployment Compensation Act
282:
249:
involved in interstate commerce, their payments to state
386:
history, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment
460:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 326
623:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
253:
funds, limits on the power of states imposed by the
594:
314:with its principal place of business ("PPB") in
608:United States personal jurisdiction case law
465:List of United States Supreme Court cases
531:International Shoe Company v. Washington
356:
322:in the State of Washington, working on
595:
332:
18:1945 United States Supreme Court case
233:International Shoe Co. v. Washington
24:International Shoe Co. v. Washington
13:
242:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
639:
603:United States Supreme Court cases
548:310 (1945) is available from:
518:
538:International Shoe v. Washington
524:
498:International Shoe v. Washington
29:
428:
613:1945 in United States case law
491:
1:
484:
236:, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a
7:
453:
404:
10:
644:
300:International Shoe Company
352:
251:unemployment compensation
223:U.S. Const. Amendment XIV
221:
216:
211:
203:
195:
190:
124:
119:
114:
109:
100:
95:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
264:
45:Decided December 3, 1945
43:Argued November 14, 1945
393:capias ad respondendum
375:Justice Robert Jackson
365:
628:Unemployment benefits
360:
259:personal jurisdiction
440:Fourteenth Amendment
571:Library of Congress
436:service of process
419:International Shoe
371:Harlan Fiske Stone
366:
343:special appearance
339:service of process
333:Procedural history
302:, was an American
255:Due Process Clause
159:William O. Douglas
135:Associate Justices
78:66 S. Ct. 154; 90
529:Works related to
238:landmark decision
229:
228:
175:Wiley B. Rutledge
171:Robert H. Jackson
151:Felix Frankfurter
635:
584:
578:
575:
569:
566:
560:
557:
551:
528:
512:
495:
471:Pennoyer v. Neff
281:, established a
183:Harold H. Burton
120:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
643:
642:
638:
637:
636:
634:
633:
632:
593:
592:
582:
576:
573:
567:
564:
558:
555:
549:
521:
516:
515:
496:
492:
487:
478:Calder v. Jones
456:
431:
407:
373:(and in which
363:Harlan F. Stone
355:
335:
267:
173:
161:
149:
147:Stanley F. Reed
131:Harlan F. Stone
91:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
641:
631:
630:
625:
620:
615:
610:
605:
591:
590:
585:
534:
520:
519:External links
517:
514:
513:
489:
488:
486:
483:
482:
481:
474:
467:
462:
455:
452:
430:
427:
406:
403:
361:Chief Justice
354:
351:
334:
331:
266:
263:
227:
226:
219:
218:
214:
213:
209:
208:
205:
201:
200:
197:
193:
192:
188:
187:
186:
185:
136:
133:
128:
122:
121:
117:
116:
112:
111:
107:
106:
102:
98:
97:
93:
92:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
640:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
618:Shoe business
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
600:
598:
589:
586:
581:
572:
563:
554:
547:
543:
539:
535:
533:at Wikisource
532:
527:
523:
522:
510:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
480:
479:
475:
473:
472:
468:
466:
463:
461:
458:
457:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
426:
422:
420:
415:
411:
402:
399:
394:
389:
385:
380:
376:
372:
364:
359:
350:
348:
344:
340:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
239:
235:
234:
224:
220:
215:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:Case opinions
189:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:Chief Justice
126:
125:
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
99:
94:
89:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
537:
511: (1945).
497:
493:
476:
469:
432:
429:Legal legacy
423:
418:
416:
412:
408:
367:
336:
308:incorporated
268:
247:corporations
232:
231:
230:
217:Laws applied
178:
166:
163:Frank Murphy
154:
142:
96:Case history
71:
53:
15:
446:notions of
444:Aristotle's
388:in personam
289:conducting
204:Concurrence
597:Categories
485:References
398:Hugo Black
324:commission
279:Washington
139:Hugo Black
86:1447; 161
84:U.S. LEXIS
347:corporate
306:that was
296:defendant
287:employers
271:plaintiff
82:95; 1945
60:Citations
536:Text of
454:See also
405:Analysis
384:American
320:salesmen
316:Missouri
312:Delaware
291:business
196:Majority
105:affirmed
553:Findlaw
448:justice
304:company
240:of the
110:Holding
583:
580:Lawlio
577:
574:
568:
565:
562:Justia
559:
556:
550:
353:Ruling
328:f.o.b.
273:, the
181:
179:·
177:
169:
167:·
165:
157:
155:·
153:
145:
143:·
141:
88:A.L.R.
80:L. Ed.
544:
504:
379:state
275:State
265:Facts
207:Black
101:Prior
546:U.S.
506:U.S.
442:and
269:The
90:1057
73:more
65:U.S.
63:326
542:326
509:310
502:326
417:In
310:in
285:on
283:tax
277:of
68:310
599::
540:,
500:,
298:,
261:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.