International Shoe Co. v. Washington [1945]

326 U.S. 310 (1945) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

civil procedurecivil procedureconstitutional law

Issue

When may a state exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant?

Held

Jurisdiction was proper because the company had minimum contacts with Washington.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Modern personal jurisdiction foundation.

Facts

Washington sought unemployment contributions from a corporation with salespeople in the state.

Issue

When may a state exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant?

Held

Jurisdiction was proper because the company had minimum contacts with Washington.

Ratio Decidendi

Personal jurisdiction depends on minimum contacts and fairness.

Reasoning

Due process requires contacts such that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U.S. 310 (1945)) strengthens a civil procedure answer because the case reflects the principle that Personal jurisdiction depends on minimum contacts and fairness. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as When may a state exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Modern personal jurisdiction foundation.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources