International
Shoe Co. v.
326
Yeazell,
p. 95-100
Facts: International Shoe is a
Procedural
Posture:
Shoe made a special appearance in
Issue: Under what conditions is a
corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in a particular state?
Rule: A corporation that is
protected by the laws of a state shall be subject to personal jurisdiction in
that state.
Analysis:
The court
interprets the due process clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that if
a company has “sufficient contacts” in a state, they may be subject to being
sued in that state.
Chief
Justice Stone relies upon the concept of “fair play”, whereas Justice Black
takes a harder line and says that under more or less no circumstances
should a state’s law be found not to apply simply because it doesn’t meet the
court’s standard of “fair play”.
Conclusion:
The Supreme
Court upheld the lower court’s ruling for the state of
Notes
and Problems
1.
a. The court
could only have reached a different result if it found that the activities of
the company in
b. I think
requiring the court to notify the parties if it is going to make a mind-blowing
doctrinal change would make things too complicated and delay the proceedings
too much. Hopefully, if the attorneys
from both sides have been reading law reviews and are familiar with the records
of the judges involved, they will be able to anticipate the changes when they
write their briefs.
2. This does seem
like an awfully vague standard, but the Court seems to suggest that the
standard is necessarily vague. If the
salespeople are freelancers, the companies that pay them will all be protected
by the laws of that state, so presumably they would all be under the personal
jurisdiction of that state. If the
salesmen travel to other states, the protection of those other states’ laws
will apply to them. It would seem that
personal jurisdiction would apply in those states as well.
3. The statement
suggests that if your corporate operations in a certain state are “continuous”
and “substantial”, you could be subject to personal jurisdiction on a whole
host of issues.
a. If a
corporation does a good amount of business in a state, it seems to be more or
less “black letter” that the corporation is subject to general jurisdiction
in that state. These would not be hard
cases.
b. If the
corporation does limited business in a state, the court must decide if the
state has specific jurisdiction on a particular issue based on how
connected that limited business is to the specific issue in question.
4. Oh boy,
hypotheticals! We’re told that Shoe
still has its headquarters in
a. It would seem
that the company doesn’t have sufficient contacts to be subject to personal
jurisdiction in
b. I don’t think
the company would be subject to personal jurisdiction in this case either for
similar reasons. The person is not a current
employee, and the alleged wrongdoing didn’t take place in
c. It would not
make any difference which plaintiff sued in
d. I think this
would be no different than case 4c. The
e. The issue here
is whether
5. Are there
situations where we can clearly see that a defendant may be sued for all claims
in a certain state?
a. If you’re
incorporated in a state, you can be sued there for anything. If you’re a person domiciled in a state, you
can also be sued there for anything. The
induced consent comes from the idea that whatever the state creates, it can
mess with or destroy. If you agree to
incorporate in my state, you have to be subject to the rules I set up.
b. If you’re
domiciled in a state, you can be served in that state even if you’re out of
state at the time. This seems like a
change from Pennoyer.