Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States · 1945 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurepersonal jurisdictionminimum contactsdue processpurposeful availmentpersonal jurisdictionminimum contactsfair play and substantial justice

Facts

International Shoe was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri and had no office, inventory, or contract-making authority in Washington. From 1937 to 1940, it employed eleven to thirteen salesmen who resided in Washington, worked chiefly there, displayed samples, solicited orders, and sometimes used rented sample rooms reimbursed by the company. The salesmen could not make contracts or collections; orders were sent to St. Louis for acceptance, and goods were shipped into Washington from outside the state. Washington served notice of assessment personally on one salesman and by registered mail to the company's Missouri office to collect unemployment fund contributions measured by the commissions paid to those salesmen.

Issue

Whether due process permitted Washington to subject International Shoe to proceedings in its courts to recover unemployment compensation contributions arising from the company's activities in Washington, and whether Washington could constitutionally impose those contributions on the company. The case also presented a Commerce Clause challenge, but the Court treated that objection as foreclosed by congressional authorization.

Rule

Due process permits a state to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a defendant not physically present in the forum when the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the state such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The inquiry turns on the quality and nature of the defendant's activities in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws, not on a mechanical or merely quantitative measure of activity. When a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state and the obligation sued upon arises out of or is connected with those activities, requiring it to defend there will in most instances not be undue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Apparel, a Nevada corporation headquartered in Utah, has no office in Oregon. For five years, it has employed nine sales representatives who live in Portland and Eugene, regularly display clothing samples to retailers, solicit orders there, and send the orders to Salt Lake City for acceptance; the company ships accepted orders into Oregon from Idaho. Oregon seeks to collect a payroll-based employment tax arising from commissions paid to those representatives.

Is Oregon's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over Blue Mesa most likely consistent with due process?

Explanation. Due process permits suit when the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The majority emphasized the quality and nature of the defendant's activities, not formal office status or contract-making authority. Here, the corporation's activities in Oregon are systematic and continuous, and the tax claim arises directly from those activities, so requiring it to defend there is reasonable. (Derived from International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945).)