CIV PRO
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 US 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 94 L.Ed. 95 (1945) History: State of WA brought action against Int’l to recover unpaid unemployment compensation taxes allegedly due as a result of the employment of salesmen in the state from 1937-1940; Appeal from Supreme Ct. of Washington Facts: International Shoe is a DE corporation that’s principal place of business is St. Louis, MI, and makes and sells shoes; Int’l maintains plants and sales units in states other than WA, but never maintained any place of business or stock of merchandise in WA; Int’l makes no contracts for sale or purchase of goods in WA and makes no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce in WA Between 1937-1940, Int’l employed 11-13 “salesmen” under the supervision of the St. Louis office who lived in WA and carried on most of their activities there; activities included exhibiting their samples and soliciting orders from shoe stores and other buyers; orders were forwarded to St. Louis for acceptance or rejection, and if accepted were shipped f.o.b. (?) from areas outside WA; all merchandise was invoiced from place of shipment and payments were sent there; no “salesman” was authorized to make any sales or collections and each received a line of samples; paid on commission, which ran $31,000.00; some might rent rooms or temp spaces in hotels, etc. to display and that money was reimbursed by Int’l Issue(s): Was International Shoe subject to the jurisdiction of WA’s courts? Holding: Washington Supreme Court said yes; US Supreme Court affirmed Analysis: US Supreme Court said Int’l Shoe did establish its “presence” in WA so along w/enjoying the benefits, Int’l Shoe is obligated to pay the taxes also; Int’l Shoe conducted business in WA by selling shoe orders, even though they didn’t have plants there and they didn’t take the money #3, #4 p. 38

To top