Although International Shoe manufactured footwear only in St. Louis, Missouri, it sold its products nationwide. It did not have offices or warehouses in the state of Washington, but it did send about a dozen salespeople there. The salespeople rented space in hotels and businesses, displayed sample products, and took orders. They were not authorized to collect payment from customers. 

When the State of Washington sought contributions to the state’s unemployment fund, International Shoe refused to pay. Washington sued. The company argued that it was not engaged in business in the state, and, therefore, that Washington courts had no jurisdiction over it. 

The Supreme Court of Washington ruled that International Shoe did have sufficient contacts with the state to justify a lawsuit there. International Shoe appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Questions:

1. Did International Shoe have sufficient minimum contacts in the state of Washington to permit jurisdiction there?

2. Why is this case important?

3. What were some of the factors in the decision?