Docstoc

International Shoe v. Washington Case Brief

Document Sample
International Shoe v. Washington Case Brief Powered By Docstoc
					International Shoe v. Washington 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)








International Shoe Company was incorporated in Delaware but did most of its business in Missouri. They had a few salespeople to advertise the product in Washington. o The salespeople were only given left shoes so they could not make a sale. This was done specifically so they could argue that they didn't do business in Washington. State of Washington had a statute that said that any corporation in their Washington had to pay into an unemployment compensation fund. International Shoe didn't pay, Washington sued. International Shoe argued that Washington did not have jurisdiction. US Supreme Court found that since the salespeople reside in Washington, and their principle activity in Washington is to the benefit of the company, and the company is paying them, that's proof that Washington does have jurisdiction over the corporation. o Court found that a corporation must have minimum contacts in a State for the State to have jurisdiction. The standard is that the activities of the corporation have been continuous and systematic in the State, and the cause of action must have arisen out of that activity. o Court found that within a Federal system, the suit could be brought as long as it did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This is a very subjective standard. The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful "contacts, ties or relations."

Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1375
posted:1/26/2008
language:English
pages:1