International Shoe Co. vs Washington
326 U.S. 310 [1945]
Author:- Sam Biers

Personal Jurisdiction and Corporations

Relevant Facts: Appellant, Int’l, is a De corporation, having its principle place of business in St. Louis, MO.  It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes/footwear.  It has businesses established in several states.  Wa is the location of the manufacturing and distribution of the merchandise.  It has no office in Wa and makes no contracts for sale there.  Int’l maintains no stock of merchandise in Wa and makes no deliveries of goods intrastate commerce.  For 3 years, appellant employed 11-13 salesmen who resided in Wa.  Their commissions each yr totaled more than $31,000, and Int’l reimburses them for expenses.  Prices, terms, and acceptance or rejection are established by St. Louis. Salesmen do not have authority to make K or collections.

Legal Issue(s): Whether a Delaware corporation, has by its activities in the State of Washington, rendered itself amenable to proceedings in the courts of Washington to recover unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund?

Court’s Holding: Yes, by its minimum contacts that are sufficient for D.P.

Procedure:   S. Ct of Wa (regular and systematic solicitation of orders in the state =sufficient to constitute doing business in the state)

Law or Rule(s): Solicitation w/i a state by the agents of a foreign corporation plus some additional activities therein are sufficient to render the corp. amenable to suit w/i the state to enforce an obligation arising out of its activities there.

Court Rationale: C. L. - jurisdiction of ct to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the person when they are present w/i the state.  D. P. requires if a person is not present w/i the state of the forum, certain minimum contacts qualify as “presence,” in order to not offend justice.  Federal cts require the corp. to defend the particular suit, and estimate of the inconveniences which would result to the corp. from a trial away from its home/pl of bus. is relevant to the reasonableness of the connection.

A casual presence of corp or agent in single or isolated items of activities in a state are not enough.  There have been instances in which the continuous corp operations w/i a state were substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it.  Acts by a corp agent, b/c of their nature, quality, and circumstances of their commission, may be deemed sufficient to render liable. Consent may be implied from its presence in the state through the acts of its authorized agents.

The activities carried on by appellant in Wa were neither irregular nor casual.  They were systematic and continuous, resulting in large volumes of interstate business.  Int’l received the benefits and protection of the laws of Wa, and the obligation at issue arose there.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The regular and systematic solicitation of orders in Wa, resulting in a continuous flow of Int’l goods into Wa, establish Int’l presence and subject to Wa power.

Defendant’s Argument: (ant) The activities of Int’l w/i the state were not sufficient to manifest its “presence,” there and its absence the Wa cts lack jurisdiction.

DISSENT: D. P. does not mean S. Ct may deprive a State of the right to afford judicial protection to its citizens on the ground that it would be more “convenient,” for the corp to be sued somewhere else.  “Fair play, justice, and reasonableness,” were not written into the Consti. as a measuring rod to use in invalidating State or Federal laws. Courts should not have the power to invalidate legislation under any such elastic standards.

Capis ad respondendum - a writ by which actions at law were commenced; and which command the sheriff to take the df, and keep him safely to answer the pl in the action. (It notifies the df to defend a suit and procures his arrest until security for pl’s claim is furnished).