International Shoe Co. v. Washington

International Shoe Co. v. Washington changed the Due Process test for in personam jurisdiction. Listen to the facts in this case, along with the new rule.
Please subscribe to the channel and leave a comment below!
Newsletter Sign-Up: eepurl.com/cBOaBv
Learn Law Better Website: learnlawbetter.com
Courses: learnlawbetter.com/courses
Facebook : / learnlawbetter
Blog: learnlawbetter.com/blog
Today I want to talk to you about one of the Supreme Court’s landmark cases, International Shoe Co. v Washington.
The Supreme Court explained that historically, in personam jurisdiction required the defendant’s physical presence in the State, citing Pennoyer v. Neff-for more on that case, watch my episode called “Sex and the Senator in Pennoyer v. Neff.” Though the Court could easily have found that International Shoe was physically present in Washington State, the Court chose to articulate the following new rule: To exercise in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the Due Process clause requires the defendant to have minimum contacts with the forum State such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Learn Law Better is designed to help law students in law school and those preparing for the bar exam.

[@marisolestrada6435]

You are an angel sent to us from the all-mighty law school gods. Thank you for this! I love how the way you incorporate test and application strategies to the explanation. 10/10 content

[@Learnlawbetter]

Thank you.

[@aripompas1003]

Very helpful in putting this case together. As a 1L, I greatly appreciate you also including what this means for an exam!

[@fionamarilynne4496]

Your videos are awesome. I love these case videos a lot. Very insightful and great information.

[@kelseycoca]

Thank you! I was really struggling to grasp the concepts of this case! This really helped me!

[@melbrown8018]

Thank you for this video! Your videos are very informative.

[@isabelamacavei1333]

Short and sweet, I loved it! Thank you, Professor!

[@Learnlawbetter]

Awesome-thanks for watching.

[@josephsos4512]

Very interesting video! Keep it up the good work

[@taodog8471]

You have a good and educational content, i like your videos.

[@leonardb.trippin8182]

Thank you for your videos. I get so overwhelmed trying to digest so much new information in class and in my books. I watch your videos after and think, "Ooooh. I get it, now".

[@Learnlawbetter]

That’s awesome! Thanks for the feedback.

[@jessikadaniels5292]

I like the way you make your videos. Keep it up

[@hyojinlee]

Thank you, professor!!

[@hyojinlee]

I'm watching this for the third time. Thank you for this video!

[@Learnlawbetter]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@MM-qx4ir]

This is my youtube go-to for law explanations. thank you

[@Learnlawbetter]

Awesome-thanks for watching!

[@MM-qx4ir]

@@Learnlawbetter Do you have a video that goes into the meaning of "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." I'm having a hard time with this one.

[@Learnlawbetter]

No, but this is a due process issue. The phrase itself doesn’t really mean much, so instead focus on the cases in the area. I do have a video on International Shoe, which discusses the minimum contact test.

[@davidcisneros8227]

This is awesome!

[@Learnlawbetter]

Glad you liked it. If there are any other landmark cases you would like covered let me know.

[@ladypoe1500]

how did the case find out ??

[@jibranshamsi754]

I wanna export leather shoes in your country. How can i get buyer? Can you help?

[@plokplok8098]

Hotdog