Infographic Template Galleries

Created with Fabric.js 1.4.5 FACTS: International Shoe v. Washington FACTS: International Shoe Co., a Delaware corp. with its principal place of business in St. Louis, employed approx. 12 salesmen in Washington State. Washington brought suit against the corporation in a Washington State court to recover unpaid contributions to an unemployment compensation fund for the salesmen residing there. A notice of assessment was served personally upon an agent in the State and by registered mail to corporate HQ. The Sup. Ct. of Washington held that the State had jurisdiction to hear the case. ISSUE: Whether personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (Int'l Shoe) that has limited, yet continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state complies with due process. RULE: For a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the state and that the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." REASONING: The activity conducted on behalf of the corporation was systematic, continuous, and resulted in a significant volume of interstate business transactions where the company enjoyed the benefits and protection of state laws, including the right to sue in state courts. "Due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" -CJ Harlan Stone DISSENT (Black): Although the state's jurisdictional power is upheld in this case, the rule may be applied to deprive a state of its ability to protect its citizens either because the defendant has insufficient minimum contacts or that it would be more "convenient" for the defendant to litigate somewhere else. The Dissent The Majority "I think it a judicial deprivation to condition [a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction] upon this Court's notion of 'fair play.'" Jurisdiction In Personam 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Justices top to bottom: Rutledge, Burton, Reed, Frankfurter, Murphy, Stone CJ, Douglas, Black (Jackson absent).
Create Your Free Infographic!