International Shoe v. Washington Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
International Shoe v. Washington | 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
In 1877’s Pennoyer versus Neff, the Supreme Court ruled that due process limited state courts to asserting personal jurisdiction only over state residents, persons found within the state, or those who owned property within the state. But advances in transportation and communications technology meant that by the middle of the twentieth century, businesses routinely operated beyond the confines of their home state. So, in 1945’s International Shoe Company versus Washington, the Court revisited state court jurisdiction over out-of-state parties.
The International Shoe Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, sold goods in Washington state but didn’t pay into the state’s unemployment insurance fund. The company had roughly a dozen salespeople in Washington but didn’t maintain offices or warehouses there. Salespeople put up temporary displays, then met with customers in hotels and public spaces. Orders were sent to Missouri and filled from facilities outside Washington. The company didn’t have a registered agent in the state.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/interna...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/interna...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► kzbin.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@cmonman89]

Great video, but one correction! Justice Black did not dissent, rather he concurred!

[@hyojinlee]

Watching this for the second time...thank you so much!

[@hyojinlee]

Thank you for this video!

[@iselasanchez1295]

Que pedo, que pedo, que pedo no english