Missouri was International Shoe Corporation\'s principal place of business, but
ID: 1143248 • Letter: M
Question
Missouri was International Shoe Corporation's principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation's sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company's Missouri headquarters. International Shoe's representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation's defense valid? Why or why not? [International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)]
Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear.
Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
Explanation / Answer
I agree with the ruling of the court in this case. Given that the corporations had employees in another state and they were generating revenue from those employees, the coroporation should be subject to the jurisdiction of that state.
Universal Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a milestone decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a gathering, especially an organization, might be liable to the ward of a state court in the event that it has "least contacts" with that state. The decision has imperative ramifications for organizations associated with interstate business, their installments to state joblessness remuneration reserves, restrains on the intensity of states forced by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the adequacy of administration of process, and, particularly, individual locale.
1. In perspective of 26 U.S.C., giving that no individual will be diminished from consistence with a state law expecting installments to a joblessness finance on the ground that he is occupied with interstate business, the way that the organization is occupied with interstate trade does not calm it from risk for installments to the state joblessness remuneration subsidize.
2. The exercises for benefit of the partnership render it manageable to suit in courts of the State to recoup installments because of the state joblessness remuneration support.
(a) The exercises being referred to built up between the State and the enterprise adequate contacts or binds to make it sensible and only, and in adjustment to the due procedure necessities of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the State to implement against the organization a commitment emerging out of such exercises.
(b) In such a suit to recoup installments because of the joblessness remuneration support, administration of endless supply of the company's business people inside the State, and notice sent by enlisted mail to the enterprise at its home office, fulfills the prerequisites of due process.
3. The duty forced by the state joblessness pay rule — understood by the state court, in its application to the enterprise, as an assessment on the benefit of utilizing sales representatives inside the State — does not abuse the due procedure condition of the Fourteenth Amendment.