International Shoe Co. v. Washington
E362100
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
All labels observed (3)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488653 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: International Shoe Co. v. Washington Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, International Shoe Co. v. Washington]
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
C.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld minimum wage laws and effectively ended the Lochner era by allowing greater government regulation of economic conditions.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: International Shoe Co. v. Washington Target entity description: International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
C.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld minimum wage laws and effectively ended the Lochner era by allowing greater government regulation of economic conditions.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark civil procedure case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
corporate defendants
ⓘ
nonresident defendants ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil procedure
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| citation | 326 U.S. 310 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1945-12-03 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| educationUse | commonly taught in first-year U.S. law school civil procedure courses ⓘ |
| factSummary |
International Shoe Company, incorporated in Missouri and headquartered in St. Louis, employed salesmen in Washington who solicited orders for shoes.
ⓘ
International Shoe Co. v. Washington self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
The State of Washington sought to collect unemployment compensation taxes from International Shoe Company for activities conducted within the state.
|
| holding | A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ⓘ |
| impact |
became foundational precedent for modern personal jurisdiction doctrine in the United States
ⓘ
influenced later cases such as Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court ⓘ influenced later cases such as Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz ⓘ influenced later cases such as World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson ⓘ replaced strict territorial presence rules for personal jurisdiction with a contacts-based analysis ⓘ |
| jurisdictionQuestion | Whether Washington could exercise in personam jurisdiction over International Shoe Company consistent with due process. ⓘ |
| jurisdictionTestElement |
fair play and substantial justice
ⓘ
quality and nature of the defendant's activities in the forum state ⓘ relationship between the contacts and the cause of action ⓘ |
| jurisdictionType | specific jurisdiction ⓘ |
| keyPhrase |
minimum contacts
ⓘ
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
due process
ⓘ
personal jurisdiction ⓘ state court jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Harlan F. Stone
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
|
| overruledPrecedent | limited the strict territorial approach of Pennoyer v. Neff without expressly overruling it ⓘ |
| page | 310 ⓘ |
| petitioner | International Shoe Company ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | Appeal from the Supreme Court of Washington ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
Washington State, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Washington
|
| ruleOfLaw | Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it. ⓘ |
| standardEstablished |
minimum contacts
ⓘ
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | state taxation of out-of-state corporations ⓘ |
| volume | 326 ⓘ |
| vote | unanimous ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: International Shoe Co. v. Washington Description of subject: International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
→
includesCase
→
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
ⓘ
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
→
factSummary
→
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
The State of Washington sought to collect unemployment compensation taxes from International Shoe Company for activities conducted within the state.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
→
citationStyle
→
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)