International_Shoe_v._Washington

International_Shoe_v._Washington - INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. STATE OF WASHINGTON ET AL. No. 107 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 326 U.S. 310; 66 S. Ct. 154; 90 L. Ed. 95; 1945 U.S. LEXIS 1447; 161 A.L.R. 1057 November 14, 1945, Argued December 3, 1945, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. APPEAL from a judgment upholding the constitutionality of a state unemployment compensation statute as applied to the appellant corporation. OPINION BY: STONE OPINION [*311] [**156] [***99] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions for decision are (1) whether, within the limitations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , appellant, a Delaware corporation, has by its activities in the State of Washington rendered itself amenable to proceedings in the courts of that state to recover unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund exacted by state statutes, Washington Unemployment Compensation Act, Washington Revised Statutes, § 9998-103a through § 9998-123a, 1941 Supp., and (2) whether the state can exact those contributions consistently with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . The facts as found by the appeal tribunal and accepted by the state Superior Court and Supreme Court, are not in dispute. Appellant is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes and other footwear. It maintains places of business in several states, other than Washington, at which its manufacturing is carried on and from which its merchandise is distributed interstate through several sales units or branches located outside the State of Washington. Appellant has no office in Washington and makes no contracts either for sale or purchase of merchandise there. It maintains no stock of merchandise in that state and makes there no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce. During the years from 1937 to 1940, now in question, appellant employed eleven to thirteen salesmen under direct supervision and control of sales managers located in St. Louis. These salesmen resided in Washington;
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
their principal activities were confined to that state; and they were compensated by commissions based upon the amount of their sales. The commissions for each year totaled more than $ 31,000. Appellant supplies its salesmen with a line of samples, each consisting of one shoe of a pair, which [*314] they display to prospective purchasers. On occasion they rent permanent sample rooms, for exhibiting samples, in business buildings, or rent rooms in hotels or business buildings temporarily for that purpose. The cost of such rentals is reimbursed by appellant. The authority of the salesmen is limited to exhibiting their samples and soliciting orders
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

International_Shoe_v._Washington - INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online