International Shoe Co. v. Washington

U.S. Case Law

Legal Definition of International Shoe Co. v. Washington

326 U.S. 310 (1945), expanded states' powers to claim jurisdiction over out-of-state parties. Prior to the ruling, states often could not establish jurisdiction (in personam jurisdiction) over outside parties, even when such parties could be shown to have contracted with or tortiously injured a state or its citizens. The Supreme Court held that when such “minimum contacts” are maintained with a state, notions of fair play and substantial justice require that the contacting party be made subject to that state's laws. Following the decision many states enacted “long-arm” statutes that extended their power to apply in personam jurisdiction. In Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), the Court applied the same “minimum contacts” standard to cases involving questions of in rem (property) and quasi in rem (intangible property) jurisdiction.

Learn More About International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Dictionary Entries Near International Shoe Co. v. Washington

international law

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

International Trade Administration

See More Nearby Entries 

Cite this Entry

“International Shoe Co. v. Washington.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/International%20Shoe%20Co.%20v.%20Washington. Accessed 1 Dec. 2021.

Style: MLA
MLACheck Mark Icon ChicagoCheck Mark Icon APACheck Mark Icon Merriam-WebsterCheck Mark Icon

WORD OF THE DAY

Test Your Vocabulary

Farm Idioms Quiz

  • cow coming home
  • What does 'poke' refer to in the expression 'pig in a poke'?
How Strong Is Your Vocabulary?

Test your vocabulary with our 10-question quiz!

TAKE THE QUIZ
Love words? Need even more definitions?

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!