BLAW 2301 Final Exam Questions and Correct Answers Updated.

International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington - Answer Facts: The state of Washington is trying to enforce several statutes requiring International Shoe Co. to pay unemployment tax for employees within the State. International Shoe contests that the court does not have jurisdiction over them and therefore they do not need to pay. 1. International Shoe has no office in Washington and makes no contracts either for sale or purchase of merchandise there. 2. It has no stock of products there & makes no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce. 3. From 1937 to 1940, International Shoe employed 11 to 13 salesmen under direct supervision and control of sales managers located in St. Louis. 4. These salesmen resided in Washington; their principal activities were confined to that state; and they were compensated by commissions based upon the amount of their sales. 5. The commissions for each year totaled more than $31,000. Issue: Can Washington assert Jurisdiction over International Shoe for purposes of taxation or the maintenance of suits without violating due process requirements? Analysis: The Court abandoned the pretense of "present" or "consent" and instead evaluated the contacts of the with the forum state. The court found that the activities conducted by International Shoe in the state of Washington were neither irregular nor casual. They were systematic and continuous throughout the years in question. They resulted in a large volume of interstate business, in the course of which appellant received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state, including the right to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. These operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state to make it reasonable and just. Won- State of Washington NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. - Answer Facts: This case challenged the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The NLRB found that Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (Jones & Laughlin) engaged in unfair labor practices by firing employees involved in union activity. Jones & Laughlin failed to comply with an order to end the discriminatory practices. The NLRB sought enforcement of its order in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found the order was outside of the range of federal power. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court).