In the International Shoe case,the United States Supreme Court held that a foreign corporation must have certain "minimum contacts" with the state such that asserting jurisdiction over the corporation does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Which of the following did the Court use to justify its holding?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court justified its holding with a benefit theory: When a foreign corporation avails itself of the protection of a state's laws,it should suffer any reasonable burden that the state imposes as a consequence of such benefit.In other words,a foreign corporation should be required to pay for the benefits that it receives from the state.

In the International Shoe Case,the United States Supreme Court Held