• After you have reviewed each case, you will want to analyze the issue based on the following:

1. Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
2. Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
3. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issues between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
4. Support your decisions with an appropriate rule of law.

Questions for Group 2

Question 5: Missouri was International Shoe Corporation’s principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation’s sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company’s Missouri headquarters. International Shoe’s representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation’s defense valid? Why or why not? [ International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).]

Question 6: Nicastro, the plaintiff, was using a metal-shearing machine in New Jersey when he hurt his hand. The machine was produced by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., which manufactured the machine in England, where the company is based. However, Nicastro brought the company to court in New Jersey because that is where the injury occurred. The company argued that it could not be brought to court in New Jersey because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over it due to the company’s lack of minimum contacts in the state. Nicastro said that the company’s distributor for the United States sold the equipment in the country, company officials attended trade shows in the country, even if they were not in New Jersey, and the record shows that one machine ended up in New Jersey. Ultimately, the company knew that its U.S. distributor could potentially sell its products in any state and that any product could somehow end up in any state. On the other hand, the company did not travel to, advertise, or contact any residents of New Jersey. Do you think the company is subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of New Jersey? How do you believe the Supreme Court ruled in this case? Why? [J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011).]