Question

In the case of international shoe company v. state of washington, the u.s. supreme court held that a company does not submit to the jurisdiction of the state courts unless it does business with the state at what level?

Answer 1

Rule of Law - For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment in persona, due process requires that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Reasoning - A state may subject a corporation to in personam jurisdiction where the corporation has such minimum contacts with the state as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend a suit there. A corporation is deemed to be "present" in a state for jurisdiction purposes when the activities of the corporation in that state have been continuous and systematic. Due process is violated where a state makes a binding judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. However, to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, giving rise to certain obligations, it is not unduly burdensome to require a corporation to respond to a suit brought within the state to enforce those obligations. In the present case, International Shoe's activities in Washington were systematic and continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business. Indeed, the obligation upon which this suit is based arose out of those activities. International Shoe employed salesmen who resided in Washington, whose principal activities were confined to the state, and who were compensated by commissions based on sales. These salesmen occasionally rented at International Shoe's expense rooms in hotels or business buildings within the state for exhibiting samples. It is clear that these activities establish sufficient contacts with Washington, to make it reasonable, under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which International Shoe has incurred there. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. Which that is your answer