International Shoe Co. v. Washington 1945
Personal Jurisdiction > Modern Con Formulation of Power CivPro – pg75 – 10/26/09
Parties: Π – State ∆ - Business Procedural History: - Supreme court is hearing a the case from the Wa supreme court Facts: - ∆ was incorporated in Delaware and operated out of St. Louis, Mo o Had no office in Washington o No contracts there o Maintains no stock of merch there o Makes no interstate commerce deliveries there - But did some activities in Wa o Employed 11 to 13 salesman (under direct control of St. Louis office) o Salesman resided in Wa o Principle business activities in Wa o Paid by commissions based on Wa sales(>$31K) o Occasionally rent space for showroom - Salesman negligence enter into K or make collections o All are approved in St. Louis - Washington wanted to sue ∆ in Washington in order to force them to pay unemployment insurance into their scheme Legal Issue: Does a corporation have sufficient contacts and ties to a state to justify personal jurisdiction and satisfy the Due Process clause if they perform continual activities, but non-core activities there? Holding: Yes. A corporation that performs ongoing activities in a state is subject to that state‟s personal jurisdiction over it. Reasoning: - In Pennoyer v. Neff the standard of presence is set to determine personal jurisdiction o Concept of “certain minimum contacts” is introduced o Corporation is a fiction, so to satisfy its „presence‟ for due process requirements the amount of contacts must be determined in that state o An estimate of the inconveniences which would result in standing trial there is the test - Presence was continuous and systematic & also give rise to the liabilities sued upon (unemployment insurance payments) o Casual or isolated presence not enough when activities are unrelated to the suit Too large of a burden - A fiction that activities = consent to suit in that state have formed, esp when activities are of such a nature as to justify the fiction - ∆ took advantages of privilege of conducting activity in the state & enjoys protections and benefits
Exercising may give rise to obligation, so when a suit is brought on those obligations it can “hardly be said to be undue” Disposition: Affirmed. Dissent/Concurrence: - Each state has the right to allow its citizens to sue a corporation doing business there without qualification - Terms like „fair play,‟ justice,‟ and reasonableness‟ are emotional, but should not be used to invalidate laws passed by legislatures - Giving this power may allow a state‟s power not to be upheld next time
o