Case Brief Civ Pro F1 evolution of personal jurisdiction Bauer 2 18 15 Identity of Case International Shoe Co v Washington 326 U S 310 1945 Page 163 of the casebook Summary of Facts Procedural History International Shoe Co operated a suit proof shoe business that insulated them from liability in the opinion of their attorneys They did not operate any stores but hired commissioned sales persons They gave them 1 left shoe in each size and the purchasers ordered shoes from the company which were shipped free on board meaning that once the shoes were shipped risk of loss transferred to the customer International shoe laid off some of their employees in Washington Washington had strict laws for unemployment compensation which required Int l shoe to pay these laidoff sales persons Int l shoe failed to comply The state of Washington filed suit against the company int l shoe appeared specially to contest personal jurisdiction in administrative court and it appealed all the way up to the supreme court Statement of the Issue Does the state of Washington have personal jurisdiction over a company that sold shoes in its state through commissioned salespersons and special orders Holding Where a company does business in a state even through sales people and without a storefront that business has established sufficient minimum contacts to establish specific personal jurisdiction Reasoning Corporations are persons but they are much more flexible That requires a more flexible test than physical presence within a state Regular and systematic contacts with the state resulting in a continuous flow of appellants product in the state was sufficient to constitute doing business in the state for personal jurisdiction Presence like this is especially sufficient when those contacts give rise to the claim without being dispositive of liability the fact that contacts caused some injury is sufficient to do the trick Evaluation
View Full Document
Unlocking...