In International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), the Supreme Court formally adopted the minimum contacts/fair play and substantial justice test for determining whether there was proper personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The state of Washington sued International Shoe Co., a foreign corporation, to recover taxes on commissions that were paid to the corporation’s Washington-based salesmen. International Shoe did not have an office in Washington, and all orders that were transmitted by its Washington salesmen were filled outside of Washington. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Washington court. The activities that were conducted on behalf of International Shoe were systematic, continuous, and resulted in interstate business where the company received the benefits and protections of Washington’s laws, including the right to sue in Washington courts. Because the company had these benefits and protections, there also arose from those same activities obligations. “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 such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
minimum contacts
Definition
A nonresident defendant’s connections with the forum state (i.e., the state where the lawsuit is brought) that are sufficient for jurisdiction over that defendant to be proper. Lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). Examples of minimum contacts include conducting business within the state, incorporating in the state, and visiting the state.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm
“As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State….The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” J. White, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
