1) International Shoe is a landmark case establishing an radically new and more expansive theory of personal jurisdiction that is, by and large, still in place today. The differences between the criteria for personal jurisdiction in Int'l Shoe and the criteria in Pennoyer should be examined carefully.

2) There are a number of defenses made by Int'l Shoe that do not have to do with personal jurisdiction. You should be able to distinguish them from the personal jurisdiction defense and identify how they were disposed of by Chief Justice Stone.

3) Would there have been jurisdiction over Int'l Shoe under the traditional Pennoyer theory?

4) How does Chief Justice Stone make his theory appear compatible with Pennoyer? What's the stuff about a capias ad respondendum? Is his interpretation of Pennoyer adequate?

5) Stone suggests that his approach is not a substantial change from Pennoyer in connection with personal jurisdiction over corporations, because a corporation's presence can be manifested "only by activities carried on in its behalf by those who are authorized to act for it." Is that argument plausible? What if Int'l Shoe had withdrawn utterly from the state of Washington a few month's prior to the suit's being brought? Would there be personal jurisdiction under a Pennoyer theory?

6) There is an extremely important distinction in Int'l Shoe between suits that concern the same activities that are used to establish personal jurisdiction and suits that concern activities other than those used to establish personal jurisdiction. How does the amount and type of activity required for personal jurisdiction depend upon which of these two types of suit is brought, according to Stone? 

8) Some have drawn out four categories of contact with the forum state described in Int'l Shoe. What do you think they are? Are these categories the most helpful way of thinking about how to get personal jurisdiction under Int'l Shoe? What's an alternative?

9) Stone makes use of a consent theory of sorts to justify his theory of jurisdiction. What is this theory? 

10)  Is there any reason to think that Int'l Shoe would not apply in an international context, that is, when attempting to get jurisdiction over someone who is not an U.S. citizen and who does not reside in the United States?

11) Having recast personal jurisdiction in terms of minimal contacts, what approach does Stone take to the question of adequate notice under due process?

12) What does Justice Black not like about Stone's opinion Int'l Shoe? He has broad concerns. What are they?

13)  Black offers his own standard. Is it a helpful one?