Personal Jurisdiction (International Shoe)

International Shoe
  • Washington State wants to collect unemployment insurance tax.
    • 1. Merit question: tax liability?
    • 2. Jurisdiction question: was Int'l Shoe sufficiently present in WA?
    • "... due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offent 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
  • Court says, YES, it is fair for Washington to exercise jurisdiction over Int'l Shoe.
  • Questions post-Int'l Shoe:
    • 1. Does this expand Pennoyer or does it change it entirely by restricting AND expanding Pennoyer?
    • 2. Is this principle applicable to "natural persons" or just multi-state corporations?
    • 3. Something uncertain about "certain minimum contacts"
      • Minimally adequate, not how minimal--i.e., are there enough contacts?
      • Test says: how much? Not really a concept of minimal, must instead be sufficient or adequate.
  • 4 types of contacts:
    • 1. Continuous & Systematic + Related to Lawsuit (fair = mostly YES)
    • 2. Continuous & Systematic + Unrelated to Lawsuit (fair = maybe)
    • 3. Sporadic & Isolated + Related to Lawsuit (fair = maybe, if high relatedness)
    • 4. Sporadic & Isolated + Unrelated to Lawsuit (fair = mostly NO)
View most interesting 'lawschool' photos on Flickriver

Related Notes

Related Commentary