Civil Procedure

Procedure
Notice of assessment was given to a sales solicitor of the International shoe. A copy of the notice was then mailed to the appellant in St. Louis, Missouri. The Appellant appealed within the office of unemployment. The appeal was denied and the appellant was ordered to pay unpaid contributions. The superior court and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Facts
The appellant is a Delaware corporation with its main office in St. Louis Missouri. This corporation sales shoes in many different states other than Washington. The appellant has no offices in Washington and makes no contracts in Washington. The appellant maintains no stock or merchandise in Washington. The corporation did have salesmen in this state who were supervised from St. Louis. These salesmen did most of their business in Washington and also resided there. The appellant gives the salesman samples, which they display, to prospective buyers. At times they rent permanent sample rooms to display shoes. The appellant reimburses them for this activity. The salesmen have no authority to make any decisions all offers and contracts are handled in St. Louis. The merchandise is then sent into Washington having been invoiced in St. Louis.

Issue
Did international shoes business in Washington make them amenable to the Personal Jurisdiction of Washington State? Was the notice of suit served properly?

Holding
Yes. The systematic and continuous business in the state of Washington deems the appellant amenable to the states courts. Minimum contacts give the court personal jurisdiction under due process. Yes. The serving of an agent of the appellant was deemed sufficient because the agent was the reason for the suit. Also the mailing of the notice was also deemed fair.

Reasoning
The appellant is enjoying protection under the law in its business within the state therefore, it must also be susceptible to the courts of the state A corporation is a fictitious entity that can only be defined as present by its business within a state.

If the corporations business within the state was isolated or casual, to bring suit in this situation would be unreasonable and the courts would not be able to bring suit to unrelated business. Even if the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state are found to exist, the court will not exercise jurisdiction if considerations of "fair play and substantial justice" would require making the defendant defend in the forum state so unreasonable as to constitute a due process violation. The satisfaction of due process depends on the quality and nature of the activity in relation to fair and orderly administration of the law

Changes in rule 1
Originally the test was whether the activity that the corporation has seen fit to attain through its agents in another state was a little more or a little less. Now it is changed to depending on the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the law which it was the purpose of due process is satisfied Originally a corporation was deemed present because of its activity within a state Now a corporation is deemed present merely to describe the activities done in a state but these activates must be enough to make it reasonable to require the corporation to come defend the suit.

2
-

Hypotheticals within the opinion

Systematic and continuous Isolated or single instance 1. 2. 3. 4. Related activity to suit Easy Yes Maybe specific Unrelated activity to suit Maybe general Easy No

continuous and systematic + based on related activity Yes single or isolated activity + based on unrelated no continuous and systematic + based on unrelated activity maybe general single or isolated + based on activity maybe specific mcgee hanson kulko wwvw asahi

 keeton BK Fairness rationale Convenience Predictability Quid pro quo Sovereignty

Keywords
De facto in fact or in deed Capias ad respondendum a judicial writ by which actions of law were frequently commenced F.O.B. free on board, the invoice price includes delivery at sellers expense to that location Exaction The wrongful act of an officer or other person in compelling payment of a fee In personam against the person Due process standards of fairness and justice Forum a court of justice, judicial tribunal Comport agree with

Assume that Carol, a long-term resident of Alabama, is a bad driver and was in two car accidents, one occurring in Alabama and the other in Mississippi. Carols only contacts with Mississippi are those over a single weekend driving trip to Philadelphia MS to gamble at the casino. The other driver is injured in each accident and wants to sue Carol for negligence. Consider personal jurisdiction in the following four cases arising from one of those accidents:

A) Plaintiff sues Carol in an Alabama court for injuries arising from the Alabama crash. Is pj proper? Hypo 1 easy yes

B) Plaintiff sues Carol in Alabama for injuries arising from the Mississippi crash. Is pj proper? Hypo 3 maybe

C) Plaintiff sues Carol in a Mississippi court for injuries arising from the Mississippi crash. Is pj proper? Hypo 4 maybe

D) Plaintiff sues Carol in Mississippi for injuries arising from the Alabama crash. Is pj proper? Hypo 2 easy no Maybe specific I Nexus Contact Related Purposeful II Reaonableness

Burden on defendant