Supreme Court meme
Oct. 2nd, 2008 10:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ste_noniI have really been enjoying reading the Supreme Court cases on my friends list this morning. Probably my favorite Supreme Court case is International Shoe v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945). (I was actually sort of surprised that this was as late as 1945.)
I say this is my favorite case because my first year in law school, Joe asked me to tell him something legal so that he could startle the JAG lawyers at his workplace with his legal knowledge. It has provided us with several funny moments since then.
But, beyond my personal sense of humor, it's an important case. Wikipedia says it is important because it "was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a civil defendant could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction by the courts of a state unless that the defendant had certain minimum contacts with that state." However, I sort of disagree with their summary. What I think it should say is that a civil defendant *can* be subject to personal jurisdiction *if* they do have minimum contacts with the state. In other words, before this case, if you were unhappy with your GE Fridge, you had to go to New York to sue GE because that's where their HQ is located. After International Shoe, you could go to California or Washington State Court and sue GE because, dude, you are selling your stuff here! If you want to be able to sell your product in a state, you will have to also be prepared to defend yourself if your product sucks. Or kills people.
Anyway, this is why International Shoe is one of my favorite Supreme Court cases. There is a huge difference between having a legal right (i.e. GE ruined my kitchen and should pay for it) and being able to take advantage of that right (what homeowner can travel to NY to prosecute this case?). International Shoe helped shrink that difference.
I say this is my favorite case because my first year in law school, Joe asked me to tell him something legal so that he could startle the JAG lawyers at his workplace with his legal knowledge. It has provided us with several funny moments since then.
But, beyond my personal sense of humor, it's an important case. Wikipedia says it is important because it "was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a civil defendant could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction by the courts of a state unless that the defendant had certain minimum contacts with that state." However, I sort of disagree with their summary. What I think it should say is that a civil defendant *can* be subject to personal jurisdiction *if* they do have minimum contacts with the state. In other words, before this case, if you were unhappy with your GE Fridge, you had to go to New York to sue GE because that's where their HQ is located. After International Shoe, you could go to California or Washington State Court and sue GE because, dude, you are selling your stuff here! If you want to be able to sell your product in a state, you will have to also be prepared to defend yourself if your product sucks. Or kills people.
Anyway, this is why International Shoe is one of my favorite Supreme Court cases. There is a huge difference between having a legal right (i.e. GE ruined my kitchen and should pay for it) and being able to take advantage of that right (what homeowner can travel to NY to prosecute this case?). International Shoe helped shrink that difference.