From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
United States Supreme Court
326 U.S 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057 (1945)
Facts
The commissioner responsible for the assessment of and collection of contributions to the Washington state (plaintiff) unemployment fund served a notice of assessment on International Shoe (defendant), a manufacturer and seller of shoes and footwear, for failure to pay into the fund during the years 1937 to 1940. International Shoe was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. The Commissioner served the notice of assessment upon a salesman employed by International Shoe in Washington State. International Shoe moved to set aside the notice on the grounds that it was not a corporation doing business in Washington, had no registered agent within the state, and was not an employer and did not furnish employment within the state as defined under state law. The unemployment office's appeal tribunal denied International Shoe's motion to set aside the notice and held that the commissioner was entitled to recover the contributions. That decision was affirmed by the commissioner, the county superior, and the Washington Supreme Court. International Shoe appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stone, C.J.)
Concurrence (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 582,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
