Week Four, Part 7 - CivPro: International Shoe

“Ms. Gonzales, let me get you in on the fun,” says Professor Joseph P. Bauer with a smirk.

It’s Friday in Civil Procedure and we’re finishing up the landmark case of International Shoe v. Washington. My study cards call it “the one supremely important case that concerns the jurisdiction of forum state courts over non-present defendants.”

The substantive issue is whether the state of Washington could require the International Shoe Company to contribute to an unemployment fund. More importantly, the procedural issue is whether a court in Washington state had personal jurisdiction over the Missouri company. The U.S. Supreme Court said yes.

Bauer asks for the core rule in Shoe.

Danielle Gonzales from Tulane U adjusts her glasses and swallows hard. She answers, “Certain minimum contacts allow for personal jurisdiction.”

“Good. After Pennoyer v. Neff we had four ways to exercise jurisdiction: presence, citizenship, consent, and service upon an agent. Now, after 1945, we have a fifth basis for in personam jurisdiction: minimum contacts.”

Gonzales nods. She’s not offering any more information than necessary.

Together they review the “subfactors” of minimum contacts.

1. whether continuous and systematic contacts by the company,
2. whether benefits and privileges to the company,
3. whether willful affiliation by the company,
4. whether effects on the company,
5. whether qualitatively substantial contacts by the company,
6. whether quantitatively substantial contacts by the company,
7. whether the company, International Shoe, could reasonably foresee being hailed into court.

Bauer asks, “Ms. Gonzales, can you make the argument that in Shoe the facts do not constitute ‘minimum contacts’?”

It’s a sneaky bit of Socratic posturing – make the student argue against the case holding.

Gonzales stays silent.

Bauer says, “My position is that a good lawyer can make any argument. Look at the O.J. case.”

We laugh.

Gonzales argues the company did not have an office in state of Washington, did not sign any contracts there, did not pay any salaries there -- only commissions.

“Good,” Bauer says. “On an exam, hypothetically, you’d be able to look at the facts of a case and see how they match these subfactors from Shoe.”

At mention of the final test, we all look up.

Another smirk from Bauer. He asks, “What’s a law exam like?”

We wait.

Bauer strokes his beard, then clears his throat.

“Torture.”

* * *