Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
Citation:326 U.S. 310 (1945)
ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
International Shoe Co. was sued in Washington state for recovery of unpaid unemployment contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund, based on provisions of the state’s Unemployment Compensation Act. Personal service was made on a company salesman employed by International Shoe Co. in Washington state, and by mailing a copy of the notice to the company’s principal place of business, in Missouri. International Shoe Co. objected to service upon it, claiming that jurisdiction over it was lacking because its activities in Washington were not sufficient to constitute its presence in the state. International Shoe had no office in Washington, made no contracts there, had no inventory there, and did not deliver goods in intrastate commerce. International Shoe did employ 11 to 13 salesman who lived and worked in Washington state. The administrative authority (state office of unemployment) upheld jurisdiction; the lower state court and the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. International Shoe appealed, claiming that its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the commerce clause were infringed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.