Welcome to LearnLawBetter.
Have you read International Shoe Co. v. Washington and are wondering what the case is all about?
In today's episode I will provide you with the relevant facts, the rule you need for
exam purposes, and an exam tip for nailing the analysis section on an essay exam.
Hi, this is Beau Baez, and today I want to talk to you about one of the Supreme Court's
landmark cases, International Shoe Co. v Washington.
International Shoe Company was a shoe company incorporated in Delaware and its principal
place of business in Missouri.
In Washington State, International Shoe hired 13 people to solicit orders for the shoes,
but not to actually sell any shoes in the State of Washington.
Once the orders were taken, the salesmen sent the order forms back to headquarters in Missouri,
where the decision was made on whether or not to sell the shoes.
This method insured that all shoe sales occurred in Missouri, and was a fairly common tax strategy
during that era to avoid a State's sales and income taxes.
But the State of Washington was not trying to enforce one of these taxes, but rather
its unemployment insurance tax as applied to the International Shoe salesmen.
Because International Shoe refused to pay the unemployment insurance tax, Washington
State sued International Shoe in its own State courts to enforce the tax assessment.
Because International Shoe's office was located in Missouri, Washington State sent
notice of the lawsuit to those offices by registered mail.
International Shoe claimed that since they did not have a permanent presence in Washington
State, the notice sent by mail into Missouri violated the Due Process clause of the United
States Constitution.
And finally, this brings us to the primary issue in the case: Does the Due Process clause
allow a State court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
who does not have a permanent presence in the State.
The Supreme Court explained that historically, in personam jurisdiction required the defendant's
physical presence in the State, citing Pennoyer v. Neff—for more information 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.
Applied to the facts in this case, the Court noted that 13 salesmen soliciting orders for
a substantial number of shoes meets the minimum contacts test.
On a final exam, what this means is that you will examine every contact that the out-of-state
defendant has with the State where the plaintiff files suit.
Given that companies can do business over the Internet today without ever sending a human
into another State, the minimum contacts test is very important.
Your job on an exam is to persuade the grader that there are, or are not minimum contacts
in that state's courts.
Usually, your professor will give you a set of facts that can go either way, so don't
spend a lot of time looking for the "right" answer.
The only right answer is one that identifies the issue, correctly states the rule of law,
and then provides a well-thought out reason for whatever conclusion you happen to reach.
For help on developing strong analysis, look at my episode called "Three Steps to Better
Analysis."
If you'd like to see more episodes that can help you succeed, hit the subscribe button.
Also, don't forget to check out LearnLawBetter.com where you will find more resources to help
you get ahead, including my blog, newsletter, and exam bank.
Thanks for watching.
For more infomation >> Majority of Washington residents targets of scam attacks - Duration: 3:00. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét