International Shoe Co. v. Washington

International Shoe Co. v. Washington changed the Due Process test for in personam jurisdiction. Listen to the facts in this case, along with the new rule.

Please subscribe to the channel and leave a comment below!

Newsletter Sign-Up: http://eepurl.com/cBOaBv

Learn Law Better Website: https://learnlawbetter.com
Courses: https://learnlawbetter.com/courses
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/learnlawbetter
Blog: https://learnlawbetter.com/blog

Today I want to talk to you about one of the Supreme Court’s landmark cases, International Shoe Co. v Washington.

The Supreme Court explained that historically, in personam jurisdiction required the defendant’s physical presence in the State, citing Pennoyer v. Neff—for more on that case, watch my episode called “Sex and the Senator in Pennoyer v. Neff.” Though the Court could easily have found that International Shoe was physically present in Washington State, the Court chose to articulate the following new rule: To exercise in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the Due Process clause requires the defendant to have minimum contacts with the forum State such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Learn Law Better is designed to help law students in law school and those preparing for the bar exam.

Видео International Shoe Co. v. Washington канала Learn Law Better