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

Share International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Resources for International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Comments on International Shoe Co. v. Washington

What made you want to look up International Shoe Co. v. Washington? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

WORD OF THE DAY

noxious or harmful

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Test Your Vocabulary

A Thanksgiving Word Quiz

  • a-traditional-thanksgiving-dinner
  • November comes from a word for which of the following numbers?
Name That Thing

Test your visual vocabulary with our 10-question challenge!

TAKE THE QUIZ
Dictionary Devil

Test Your Knowledge - and learn some interesting things along the way.

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!