International Shoe Co. v Washington, Slides of Business

Download International Shoe Co. v Washington and more Slides Business in PDF only on Docsity!

International Shoe Co. v

Washington

Presented by: Laura Aldana Mario V. and Ina Gonzalez

Summary

International Shoe Co. is a corporation established in Delaware and their main place of business was held in St. Louise Missouri. International Shoe Co. had employed 11 to 13 salespersons who resided in the state of Washington. International Shoe Co. was being sued by the state of Washington to recover unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund.

Arguments

International Shoe Co.

• Was not properly served
• Claims that they are not a corporation of the state of Washington
• Their activities are not enough to manifest “presence”
• State courts of Washington were without jurisdiction
• Violation of the Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment

State of Washington

• Properly serves and proper notice was sent
• Minimum Contacts
• International Shoe Co. received the benefits and protections of Washington's laws. ISC was able to sue in the state of Washington and also subjected to suits brought against them.
• Agents were established

14 th^ Amendment & Due Process

Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life , liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of the law

Explanation to 1

The questions to be decided on are as followed:

• 1. Has the activities of International Shoe Co. proven to have “presence” in the state of Washington.
• 2. Whether the state of Washington can demand and obtain unpaid contributions to the unemployment fund with out violation the due process clause of the 14th^ Amendment.

Explain the relevance of the following…

• "Appellant has no office in Washington and makes no contracts either for sale or purchase of merchandise there. It maintains no stock of merchandise in that state and makes there no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce. During the years from 1937 to 1940, now in question, appellant employed eleven to thirteen salesmen under direct supervision and control of sales managers located in St. Louis. These salesmen resided in Washington; their principal activities were confined to that state; and they were compensated by commissions based upon the amount of their sales. The commissions for each year totaled more than $31,000. Appellant supplies its salesmen with a line of samples, each consisting of one shoe of a pair, which 314*314 they display to prospective purchasers. On occasion they rent permanent sample rooms, for exhibiting samples, in business buildings, or rent rooms in hotels or business buildings temporarily for that purpose. The cost of such rentals is reimbursed by appellant."

Explain the following…

• "The Supreme Court of Washington was of opinion that the regular and systematic solicitation of orders in the state by appellant's salesmen, resulting in a continuous flow of appellant's product into the state, was sufficient to constitute doing business in the state so as to make appellant amenable to suit in its courts. But it was also of opinion that there were sufficient additional activities shown to bring the case within the rule frequently stated, that solicitation within a state by the agents of a foreign corporation plus some additional activities there are sufficient to render the corporation amenable to suit brought in the courts of the state to enforce an obligation arising out of its activities there. "

Explanation 3

• The Supreme Court of Washington decided that the orders that were placed in the State of Washington by the appellant’s salesmen was enough evidence of doing business within the State of Washington making the suit in question applicable to the appellant. Because of the frequent orders gathered from clients in Washington, the Appellees product continuously entered the state. That was enough to say that International Shoe Co, did business in Washington and ISC was entitled to sue in Washington courts therefor ISC should adhere to suits brought against them by the state of Washington.

Explanation 4

• The statement here is talking about history in the courts. The capias ad respondendum was replaced by the serving process which is more directly to the person of the defendant ordering them to appear before the court to establish jurisdiction over a specific person/ company in order to enforce the possible rights under the due process of law. If the specific person or company is not within territorial of state certain minimum contacts do apply to the specific jurisdiction.

Explain the following…

• "Appellant also insists that its activities within the state were not sufficient to manifest its "presence" there and that in its absence the state courts were without jurisdiction, that consequently it was a denial of due process for the state to subject appellant to suit. It refers to those cases in which it was said that the mere solicitation of orders for the purchase of goods within a state, to be accepted without the state and filled by shipment of the purchased goods interstate, does not render the corporation seller amenable to suit within the state. "

Explain the following…

• "Whether due process is satisfied must depend rather upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure. That clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff, supra; Minnesota Commercial Assn. v. Benn, 261 U.S. 140."

Explanation 6

• This was one of questions to the court relating to the fairness of the trail. A question the court had was to decide whether a new standard needed to be defined in proper jurisdiction. For example in the case of Pennoyer v Neff court ruled that the defendants had to have some presence in a state for proper jurisdiction. The state decided that the due process clause would affect the states citizens by taking from them the power to protect them in their business dealings and its boundaries with those from a foreign corporation.

Explanation 7

• This is another argument on the side of the appellant. Appellant is relating that prior cases relating to its absence not applicable to the jurisdiction. Also, insisting that their absence of presence is a denial to the due process of the state and there for not subject to the suit.

Who won the case?

• International Shoe Co. lost the case in the lower courts which then appealed and the case was brought to the US Supreme Court who then affirmed the appeal. The state of Washington won the case. It was established that International Shoe Co. had enough “presence” in the state of Washington to sue in its courts .Therefor it was subjected to suits brought against them by the state of Washington.