CASE BRIEF

Case Brief

International Shoe v. Washington State

The International Shoe Company (International Shoes, Company,) is incorporated in Delaware, but the main production of business is located in the territory of Missouri. In order to expand the business in the north-western United States, the company employs more than a dozen residents of Washington State as a product salesman in the land, but not for these salesmen in the state to establish a fixed place of business. The main duties of these salesmen are: (1) collecting footwear products for the company in Washington State orders; (2) Regular orders will be sent to the company confirmation and product processing plant in Missouri. At that time, the Washington state legislature enacted an unemployment insurance law. The Act to protect the vital interests of employees in the areas of Washington State employees, the business, trade or production run corporate (including out-of-state legal persons and foreign companies, legal persons) must be required under state law for each employee who regularly paid the compulsory unemployment insurance, and shall not commence operations. Washington state labor management department finds that the international footwear company employs local people to carry out business activities in the state field, but long-term non-payment of unemployment insurance. The labor management department has repeatedly urged the international shoe company to pay the latter for non-payment of unemployment insurance, but the latter simply ignored. Therefore, the labor management department of the name of the state of Washington to the identity of the plaintiff to the state District Court to file a civil lawsuit, asking the court to: (1) judgment to the plaintiff as the defendant's international shoe company pay for the labor insurance costs and interest thereon, or (2) to make a ban: If in the present case, the defendant do not pay the employees' insurance premiums, the court would prohibit the defendant to continue business activities in the state. The plaintiff's claim is accepted and the international shoe company issued a subpoena to require the latter to the seat of the Court to attend the hearing in the court-appointed trial maturity to accept the court on this civil disputes referees. U.S. judiciary is generally believed that the jurisprudence of the creation of non-state parties to exercise personal jurisdiction of the two new standards: (1) must show that non-legal minimum contact between the state parties and state ; (2) the state court must ensure that non-state parties in the court hearings and opportunity to be heard.

The case is an important milestone in the U.S. interstate civil action, the beginning of the initiation of long arm jurisdiction; the "minimum contacts" standard began to replace the traditional "power to govern" the theory into new jurisdictional basis. Theory of long arm jurisdiction, even if a non-resident defendant is not in the courts to "appear", as long as there was a link or deliberately with the Court to establish a link with the Court to the Court inclined to the exercise of a defendant special jurisdiction, which opens the way to expand ...