Docstoc

INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON

Document Sample
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON Powered By Docstoc
					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


				
DOCUMENT INFO