This question has four parts.

A. Summarize the rule from International Shoe.

Now, to understand the key development in International Shoe, apply the rule stated above to a set of simple hypothetical cases.

Assume that International Shoe is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters and principal manufacturing operations in Missouri. Further assume that International Shoe has no salespeople in Wyoming, sells no shoes there, buys no cowhide there, and does no business there of any sortexcept to use Wyoming roads for transporting its wares to other states.

B. A truck loaded with shoes, owned by International Shoe Co. and driven by one of its employees, travels through Wyoming on its way to the State of Washington. While in Wyoming, the truck collides with a pickup driven by a rancher, who is injured in the accident. The rancher files suit against International Shoe in Wyoming, alleging negligence by the International Shoe driver. Jurisdiction in Wyoming?

C. In Wyoming there also lives a former employee of International Shoe who used to work for the company at its Missouri headquarters. Alleging that she was wrongfully discharged from her job in Missouri, she files suit against International Shoe in Wyoming. Jurisdiction? What is the rationale on which one could explain a different outcome in Question B and here in Question C?

D. Now imagine the plaintiffs in B and C file suit in Missouri. In determining whether the state has personal jurisdiction over International Shoe, would it make any difference whether the plaintiff was the rancher in B or the former employee in C?