Connection lost
Server error
INTERNAT. SHOE CO. v. WASHINGTON Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Delaware shoe company with salesmen in Washington challenged the state’s jurisdiction to collect unemployment taxes. The Supreme Court held that the company’s systematic and continuous activities in the state established sufficient “minimum contacts” to permit jurisdiction without violating due process.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established the “minimum contacts” test for personal jurisdiction, replacing the rigid “presence” theory. It requires that exercising jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” fundamentally reshaping modern civil procedure.
INTERNAT. SHOE CO. v. WASHINGTON Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
International Shoe Co., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, employed eleven to thirteen salesmen in the State of Washington. These salesmen resided in Washington, and their activities were confined to that state. Their authority was limited to exhibiting samples and soliciting orders, which were then transmitted to the company’s Missouri office for acceptance or rejection. The company had no offices or stock of merchandise in Washington, and it made no contracts there. Washington sought to collect unpaid contributions to its state unemployment fund based on the commissions paid to these salesmen. Notice of assessment was served on one of the salesmen in Washington and mailed to the company’s headquarters in St. Louis. International Shoe appeared specially to contest the state’s jurisdiction, arguing that its activities did not constitute “presence” within the state and that the exercise of jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that has systematic and continuous business activities within the state, where the cause of action arises directly from those activities, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No, the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional. The Court held that International Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that has systematic and continuous business activities within the state, where the cause of action arises directly from those activities, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This case fundamentally reshaped the doctrine of personal jurisdiction by replacing the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Legal Rule
To subject a non-resident defendant to in personam jurisdiction, due process requires Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Analysis
The Court abandoned the rigid territorial framework of personal jurisdiction established in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepte
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if