International Shoe Co. v. Washington Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporation challenged a state’s jurisdiction to sue it for unpaid taxes, arguing it wasn’t physically “present.” The Supreme Court found jurisdiction was proper because the company had sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state, establishing a new, more flexible standard for personal jurisdiction.
Legal Significance: This case established the modern “minimum contacts” test for personal jurisdiction, replacing the rigid physical presence requirement from Pennoyer v. Neff and fundamentally reshaping the constitutional limits on a state court’s power over non-resident defendants.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
International Shoe Co., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, employed eleven to thirteen salesmen in the State of Washington. These salesmen resided in Washington, and their primary activities were confined to the state. They were compensated by commissions on sales. The salesmen’s authority was limited to soliciting orders and exhibiting samples; they could not enter into contracts or make collections. Orders were transmitted to the company’s office in Missouri for acceptance or rejection, and merchandise was shipped from outside Washington directly to the purchasers. International Shoe had no offices, maintained no inventory, and made no contracts for sale in Washington. The State of Washington sought to collect unpaid contributions to its state unemployment fund based on the commissions paid to these salesmen. Notice of assessment was served on one of the salesmen in Washington and mailed to the corporation’s headquarters in Missouri. International Shoe appeared specially to contest the state’s jurisdiction, arguing that its activities did not constitute “doing business” or being “present” in Washington, and therefore the state’s exercise of jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation whose in-state activities consist of regular and systematic solicitation of orders that result in a continuous flow of its products into the state?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Washington’s exercise of jurisdiction over International Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation whose in-state activities consist of regular and systematic solicitation of orders that result in a continuous flow of its products into the state?
Conclusion
This landmark decision replaced the concept of territorial jurisdiction based on physical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Legal Rule
To subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if the defendant Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n
Legal Analysis
The Court abandoned the rigid territorial framework of *Pennoyer v. Neff*, which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Replaced the Pennoyer-era “presence” test for personal jurisdiction over corporations. -