Personal Jurisdiction and Minimum Contact

Blogger is acting quite weird today. If my summary of minimum contact ultimately ends up in italicized Korean Pig Latin, blame technology and not me.

If a non-resident individual or corporation establishes minimum contact within a state, that state has personal jurisdiction. Like the man of ordinary prudence, minimum contact is a standard. The court is supposed to objectively decide exactly how much "contact" warrants jurisdiction. I'm guessing there are loads of appeals.

International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

Facts
International Shoe maintains its headquarters in Delaware. The company employs salesmen in the state of Washington. These men receive sample shoes, and solicit residents of Washington to order from International Shoe. The salesmen do not enter into contracts. They send the orders to Missouri, where the shoes are manufactured and the orders approved. The shoes are then shipped to the purchaser back in Washington. The state of Washington maintains that International Shoe should be bound to contribute to the state's unemployment fund. International Shoe argues that they technically do not conduct business in the state.

Questions
1. Is International Shoe liable for unemployment contributions in the state of Washington?
2. Does the state of Washington have personal jurisdiction over International Shoe?

Holding
1. Yes
2. Yes

Reasoning
1. International Shoe has benefited from laws and services provided by the state and state funding.
2. International Shoe's business dealings in Washington were "systematic and continuous", and therefore sufficient to establish minimum contact with the state.