Case Citator › International Shoe Co. v. Washington

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
326 U.S. 310
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
534 of 534
Citing cases (total)
18,483
Treatment dates
1982
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. International Shoe Co. v. Washington remains the governing minimum contacts decision, but Ruggieri v. General Well Service, Inc. criticized how little practical guidance its test gives trial courts; that criticism is listed below. All 534 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions applied International Shoe or addressed different rules, arguments, and proceedings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

18,483 later cases cite International Shoe Co. v. Washington; 534 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on International Shoe Co. v. Washington?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The court criticized International Shoe's minimum contacts test as too vague to guide trial courts, while continuing to apply it.

    Ruggieri v. General Well Service, Inc. · District of Colorado · filed

    Although the International Shoe test must be applied to determine when the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper, it is actually not very helpful. Phrases like “minimum contacts” and “fair play and substantial justice” have a nice ring, but they do not supply standards for a trial court to apply.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads International Shoe Co. v. Washington and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace