No video

International Shoe v. Washington Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

  Рет қаралды 93,777

Quimbee

Quimbee

Күн бұрын

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
International Shoe v. Washington | 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
In 1877’s Pennoyer versus Neff, the Supreme Court ruled that due process limited state courts to asserting personal jurisdiction only over state residents, persons found within the state, or those who owned property within the state. But advances in transportation and communications technology meant that by the middle of the twentieth century, businesses routinely operated beyond the confines of their home state. So, in 1945’s International Shoe Company versus Washington, the Court revisited state court jurisdiction over out-of-state parties.
The International Shoe Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, sold goods in Washington state but didn’t pay into the state’s unemployment insurance fund. The company had roughly a dozen salespeople in Washington but didn’t maintain offices or warehouses there. Salespeople put up temporary displays, then met with customers in hotels and public spaces. Orders were sent to Missouri and filled from facilities outside Washington. The company didn’t have a registered agent in the state.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZfaq Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Пікірлер: 7
@cmonman89
@cmonman89 6 жыл бұрын
Great video, but one correction! Justice Black did not dissent, rather he concurred!
@hyojinlee
@hyojinlee 3 жыл бұрын
Watching this for the second time...thank you so much!
@hyojinlee
@hyojinlee 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video!
@iselasanchez1295
@iselasanchez1295 4 жыл бұрын
Que pedo, que pedo, que pedo no english
Video Case Brief: International Shoe v. Washington (Civil Procedure
12:00
Supreme Court Shenanigans !!!
12:02
CGP Grey
Рет қаралды 9 МЛН
Gli occhiali da sole non mi hanno coperto! 😎
00:13
Senza Limiti
Рет қаралды 18 МЛН
Joker can't swim!#joker #shorts
00:46
Untitled Joker
Рет қаралды 40 МЛН
Pool Bed Prank By My Grandpa 😂 #funny
00:47
SKITS
Рет қаралды 20 МЛН
Kids' Guide to Fire Safety: Essential Lessons #shorts
00:34
Fabiosa Animated
Рет қаралды 15 МЛН
Pennoyer v. Neff
4:00
Michigan State University College of Law
Рет қаралды 23 М.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
4:35
Learn Law Better
Рет қаралды 13 М.
How Student Loans Are Changing, Regardless of the Supreme Court Ruling | WSJ
6:59
The Wall Street Journal
Рет қаралды 702 М.
Attorney Steve® Personal Jurisdiction Crash Course!
13:53
Steve Vondran
Рет қаралды 745
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [SCOTUSbrief]
6:36
The Federalist Society
Рет қаралды 54 М.
Supreme Court BANS Faithless Electors…………?
4:31
CGP Grey
Рет қаралды 3 МЛН
Gli occhiali da sole non mi hanno coperto! 😎
00:13
Senza Limiti
Рет қаралды 18 МЛН