This paper is to be a summary of what you have learned in my class, whether it is from reading a newspaper, from my lectures, and/or from the textbook (three things that do not rot your brain or waste

v.

Wash in gto n, th e main questio n was wheth er th e sta te o f W ash in gto n had th e rig ht to mak e In te rn atio nal Shoe Corp ora ti o n pay money in to th e s ta te u nem plo ym en t fu nd, ev en th ough th e co m pan y’s main off ic e was in Mis s o uri.

IS C a rg ued t h at th e sta te sh ould not be allo w ed to do so bec au se th e co m pan y was not p ro perly notif ie d an d did not hav e en ough of a pre se n ce in Wash in gto n.

How ev er, th e I S C a rg um en t was not valid becau se th e co m pan y was doin g en ough busin ess in W ash in gto n fo r th e sta te to hav e au th ority ov er it.

E ven th ough In te rn atio nal Shoe was base d in Mis s o uri, it had peo ple work in g in W ash in gto n.

This was not so m eth in g th at hap pen ed only once in a whil e , it hap pen ed r e g ula rly .

The Supre m e Court decid ed th at if a co m pan y does re g ula r busin ess in a sta te a n d m ak es money th ere , it is fa ir fo r th at sta te to re q uir e th e co m pan y to fo llo w it s la w s.

T he C ourt calle d th is hav in g “m in im um co nta c ts ,” mean in g th e co m pan y had en ough c o nnectio n to th e sta te .

I n th is case , IS C mad e money fro m cu sto m ers in Wash in gto n bec au se of it s s a le sp eo ple work in g th ere .

Sin ce th e unem plo ym en t ta x was re la te d to th e co m pan y’s b usin ess activ itie s in th e sta te , th e Court sa id it was fa ir fo r Wash in gto n to re q uir e IS C to c o ntr ib ute to th e unem plo ym en t fu nd.

The Court als o dec id ed th at giv in g noti c e to one of t h e c o m pan y’s re p re se n ta tiv es in Wash in gto n an d mailin g a co py to th e main off ic e was a ccep ta b le .

T his case becam e very im porta n t beca u se it ch an ged how co m pan ie s did busin ess w hen b ein g fro m a dif f e re n t sta te .

Befo re th is ca se , co urts lo oked at where a co m pan y h ead quarte rs was lo cate d .

Afte r th is case , co urts sta rte d lo okin g more at how much b usin ess th e co m pan y actu ally did th ere .

This help ed th e la w kee p up with busin esse s th at w ork i n m an y sta te s at th e sa m e tim e.

I n co nclu sio n, th e co m pan y IS C was doin g busin ess in Wash in gto n.

The Supre m e C ourt r u le d th at it was fa ir fo r Wash in gto n to ap ply its la w s to IS C ev en th ough th e c o m pan y main ly re sid es in Mis so uri.

This case le d to th e “m in im um co nta c ts ” ru le bein g c re ate d , w hic h co urts still use to day to decid e when co m pan ie s sh ould obey an oth er s ta te ’s l a w s.