Thank you for allowing me to help you understand these questions for your course.
What is the holding in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310?
International Shoe Co. (D, appellant) was a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It had no offices in the state of Washington and made no contracts for sale there. International Shoe did not keep merchandise in Washington and did not make deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce originating from the state.
International Shoe employed 11-13 salesmen for three years who resided in Washington. Their commissions each year totaled more than $31,000 and International Shoe reimbursed them for expenses. Prices, terms, and acceptance or rejection of footwear orders were established through St. Louis. Salesmen did not have authority to make contracts or collections.
The state of Washington brought suit against International Shoe in Washington State court to recover unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. Notice was served personally on an agent of the defendant within the state and by registered mail to corporate headquarters. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the state had jurisdiction to hear the case and International Shoe appealed.
Did International Shoe's activities in Washington make it subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington courts?
Holding and Rule (Stone)
In this solution I go into detail about the holding in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310. In addition, I explain what "minimum contacts" and "long arm statutes" are and why they are important to business law.