#29 · 2026-09-04 · Case
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington established the minimum-contacts framework for personal jurisdiction. The company’s sustained sales activities in Washington supported jurisdiction over obligations arising from those activities. Later cases further develop the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction.
Rule to remember
International Shoe established that due process permits personal jurisdiction over an absent defendant with sufficient forum contacts consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
Key elements and checks
- Identify the defendant's contacts with the forum.
- Consider their connection to the obligations sued upon.
- Evaluate the fairness of exercising jurisdiction.
In the source’s words
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
International Shoe, 326 US 310, 316 (1945)
This is the foundational historical holding. Modern general and specific jurisdiction doctrine adds further requirements.