Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Shaffer v. Heitner

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Civil Procedure

personal jurisdictionin remminimum contactsquasi in remDue Process ClauseInternational Shoeminimum contactsfair play and substantial justice

Facts

Heitner, a nonresident owner of one share of Greyhound stock, filed a shareholder derivative action in Delaware against Greyhound, its subsidiary, and 28 present or former officers or directors, alleging breaches of duty connected to conduct in Oregon that led to substantial liabilities. At the same time, he sought sequestration under Delaware law of the individual defendants' Greyhound stock, options, and related rights, which Delaware treated as located in Delaware because Greyhound was incorporated there. About 82,000 shares and some options belonging to 21 defendants were seized by stop-transfer orders on Greyhound's books, although the record did not show that any certificates were physically in Delaware. The defendants specially appeared and argued, among other things, that they lacked sufficient contacts with Delaware under International Shoe.

Issue

Whether Delaware could, consistent with the Due Process Clause, exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over nonresident defendants by sequestering their stock and related interests in a Delaware corporation when the property was unrelated to the underlying cause of action and the defendants otherwise lacked sufficient contacts with Delaware. More broadly, whether in rem and quasi in rem assertions of jurisdiction must satisfy International Shoe's minimum-contacts standard.

Rule

All assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated under the standards of International Shoe and its progeny. The presence of property in the forum may supply relevant contacts among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, but the presence of property alone does not support jurisdiction when the property is unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action and no other sufficient contacts exist.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez, a resident of New Mexico, sued Omar Reed in a Nevada state court for misrepresentations he allegedly made during a business meeting in Texas. Omar lives in Illinois and has never been to Nevada, but he owns shares in Silver Mesa Robotics, a fictional company incorporated in Nevada; the shares were sequestered under a Nevada statute that deems all stock in Nevada corporations located in Nevada.

Assuming Omar received notice of the suit, is Nevada's assertion of jurisdiction most likely consistent with due process?

Explanation. All assertions of state-court jurisdiction must satisfy International Shoe's minimum-contacts standard. Property in the forum may be a relevant contact, but property alone is insufficient when it is unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action and merely serves to compel the defendant's appearance. The majority rejected the idea that statutory situs by itself can sustain quasi in rem jurisdiction.