Facts: -International Shoe is incorporated in Delaware but had 11- 13 salesmen working in Washington over a 3 year period. Principle place of business is in St. Louis, Missouri.

-merchandise is distributed through several sales units or branches located outside the State of Washington

-it has no office and maintains no stock in Washington

-Washington had a statute saying suits may be filed against those doing business in the state

-appellant says activity in Washington is not enough to establish its presence there

-is suing for lack of due process (because it is being sued in Washington)

Procedure: Appellant moved to set aside the order of service in front of an appeal tribunal which denied its request. That action was affirmed by the Commissioner and both the Superior Court and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue: Is the presence of several shoe salesmen in Washington, representing a Delaware based company, enough to bring that corporation under the jurisdiction of the Washington courts? (What degree of involvement does a nonresident have to have in a state in order for that state to exercise jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause?)

Rule: As long as the non-resident or corporation enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of the state in which they are doing business and these actions are continuous and systematic, they fall within its jurisdiction and must respond to suits brought against them.

Holding: The presence of salesmen in Washington is sufficient to manifest the corporation’s presence there thus giving the state courts jurisdiction.

Rationale: The key in this case is to determine if the corporation has a "presence" in the state. When the activities of the corporation are continuous and systematic, presence cannot be doubted. The appellants received the benefit and protection of the courts in a large volume of interstate business and therefore in the traditional concept of fair play and substantial justice the state is permitted to enforce the obligations which the appellant has incurred there. These operations establish sufficient ties with the state to give the state jurisdiction.

Policy/Notes: Black dissent: criticizes the Court on the grounds that the standard it creates is not in the Constitution and is so vague that it will make the Justices "supreme arbitrators" of state power. Test this case presents is: see if person/company receives benefits/services of state in order to see if state has jurisdiction.

Minimum contact necessary to justify the exercise of jurisdiction in personam.