Monday, November 16, 2009

International Shoe Case Brief

This is a popular case brief that nearly all law schools make thier law students brief. International Shoe was a landmark decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a civil defendant could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction by the courts of a state unless the defendant had certain mimimum contacts with that state.


International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

Procedural History:
The Supreme Court of Washington ruled that the regular and systematic solicitation of business in the state was enough to constitute business in the state. International Shoe can be tried in Washington.

Facts:
International Shoe is a Delaware company based in St. Louis. They have some salesmen on commission in the state of Washington but don’t have any offices there. Washington is trying to get the company to ante up for its unemployment fund. Washington served Shoe notice of assessment by personally delivering it to one of their salesmen in Washington as well as sending registered mail to their home office in St. Louis.

Issue:
Can the defendant be held to proceedings in Washington courts without the violation of the Due Process Clause?

Holding:
Yes, the defendant can be held to proceedings in Washington courts without the violatino of the Due Process Clause.

Rationale:
The court found that International Shoe conducted “systematic and continuous” business within the state of Washington because of the hired personnel in the State. There was a large volume of interstate business with this state created through International Shoe and the State of Washington through these hired personnel. The court also found that because the fact that the company International Shoe and its hired personnel were receiving the protection of the laws of Washington that the state of Washington had in personam jurisdiction with International Shoe. The personnel that were hired in the state of Washington lived permanently in Washington means that the company had a permanency for doing business with the State.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling for the state of Washington

No comments:

Post a Comment