Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1977

Shaffer v. Heitner

433 U.S. 186 | 97 S. Ct. 2569 | 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 | 1977 U.S. LEXIS 139

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Shaffer made International Shoe's minimum-contacts test the constitutional rule for every form of state-court jurisdiction, ending reliance on unrelated property in the forum as an automatic basis for quasi in rem jurisdiction.

Background

Heitner, a nonresident shareholder of Greyhound Corporation, brought a derivative action in Delaware against Greyhound, its subsidiary, and numerous present and former officers and directors. He alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties by causing corporate conduct that produced major antitrust and criminal-contempt liabilities. The alleged misconduct occurred outside Delaware.

At the outset of the suit, Heitner invoked Delaware's sequestration statute to seize the nonresident defendants' Greyhound stock, options, and related interests. Delaware deemed shares in a Delaware corporation to be located in Delaware, even though the stock certificates were not physically there. The statutory procedure aimed to pressure nonresident defendants to enter a general appearance; defendants could not defend on the merits without submitting to the court's full personal jurisdiction.

The defendants specially appeared and challenged the sequestration order and Delaware's jurisdiction. The Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the procedure. They treated the case as quasi in rem jurisdiction based on the statutory presence of the defendants' property, and therefore concluded that International Shoe's minimum-contacts test did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Due Process Clause requires state courts to apply International Shoe's minimum-contacts standard to in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction, rather than relying solely on the presence of property in the forum.

Holding

Yes. All assertions of state-court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction, must satisfy the standards of International Shoe and its progeny.

Reasoning

The older framework of Pennoyer v. Neff divided jurisdiction into personal jurisdiction over persons and jurisdiction over property within a state's territory. But International Shoe shifted the constitutional inquiry away from territorial power and toward the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation—asking whether jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

An action nominally directed at property is, in practical terms, an action affecting persons' interests in that property. Because an adverse in rem judgment directly affects an owner's rights, due process cannot turn on elusive labels such as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.

Property in the forum can be an important contact. When the dispute concerns ownership, possession, use, or obligations arising from property located in the state, the property's location will ordinarily support jurisdiction because the owner has invoked the state's protection of that interest and the state has a strong interest in resolving local property disputes.

But in the form of quasi in rem action used here, the attached property was unrelated to the claim. Its sole function was to force the defendant into court. If the Constitution would forbid direct personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the state cannot accomplish the same result indirectly by seizing unrelated property.

History alone did not preserve the old rule. The fiction that jurisdiction over property is not jurisdiction over its owner lacked a sufficient modern justification, and retaining it would permit fundamentally unfair exercises of state power. Prior decisions inconsistent with the International Shoe standard were overruled.

Issue #2

Whether Delaware could exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident officers and directors based on the statutory Delaware situs of their Greyhound stock or on their corporate positions.

Holding

No. The stock's statutory presence in Delaware, and the defendants' positions as officers or directors of a Delaware corporation, did not create sufficient contacts to support jurisdiction in this derivative action.

Reasoning

The seized Greyhound shares and options were not the subject of Heitner's derivative claims, and the alleged fiduciary misconduct did not arise from the defendants' ownership of those interests. Thus, the statutory location of the stock did not itself establish the constitutionally required contacts among the defendants, Delaware, and this litigation.

The record did not show that the defendants had been to Delaware or that any conduct underlying the suit occurred there. Delaware's sequestration statute itself did not rest jurisdiction on fiduciary status or conduct connected to Delaware; it applied broadly to nonresidents who happened to own seizable property in the state.

Delaware's interest in regulating corporations it charters could support applying Delaware corporate law to fiduciary disputes. But choice of law and personal jurisdiction are distinct questions. A state's legitimate interest in having its law govern a dispute does not automatically make its courts a constitutionally proper forum for every defendant involved in that dispute.

Accepting office in a Delaware corporation did not, on this record, amount to purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Delaware. Delaware had not enacted a statute making acceptance of a directorship consent to suit there, and simply buying securities in a Delaware corporation did not imply consent to Delaware jurisdiction on unrelated claims. Accordingly, Delaware's assertion of jurisdiction violated due process.

Concurrences

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell joined the Court's conclusion that International Shoe governs in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction, and that neither the defendants' stock nor their corporate offices supplied adequate contacts here.

He reserved judgment on a narrower question: whether ownership of property with an indisputable and permanent situs in a state—especially real property—might itself provide sufficient contact for jurisdiction up to the property's value. In his view, preserving some traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction over land might avoid uncertainty without offending fair play and substantial justice.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens concurred only in the judgment because he understood due process to require not only actual notice of a particular suit, but also fair warning that a person's conduct or property relationship could expose that person to a foreign state's jurisdiction.

A person who visits a state, acquires land there, or opens a local bank account can predict that the state may exercise authority over that person or property. Purchasing stock on the national securities market is different: an ordinary investor cannot realistically be expected to investigate the corporation's state of incorporation and learn that Delaware assigns the stock a situs there for jurisdictional purposes.

Delaware's procedure made the risk especially unfair because it treated stock as located in Delaware despite the absence of both owner and certificates, and it forced a defendant either to submit to unlimited personal jurisdiction or lose the attached securities. Justice Stevens feared the majority's opinion might sweep too broadly, however, and would not read it to invalidate traditional jurisdiction involving real estate or other situations in which the defendant had adequate notice that local activity could lead to suit.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan joined the Court's rejection of jurisdiction based solely on quasi in rem attachment, but dissented from the Court's decision to resolve the minimum-contacts question in Part IV. Delaware had expressly treated its sequestration statute as a property-based jurisdictional statute, not as a statute authorizing jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by International Shoe. Once the Court invalidated that premise, deciding whether contacts existed under a different, hypothetical statute was, in his view, an advisory opinion.

The record had not been developed around minimum contacts because neither the parties nor the Delaware courts considered that question controlling. Heitner had no occasion to seek discovery about the defendants' contacts with Delaware, and the Court's constitutional ruling therefore rested on an inadequate factual foundation.

Justice Brennan would not foreclose Delaware from adopting or construing a jurisdictional statute that rests on constitutionally sufficient contacts. As a general matter, he believed that the incorporating state has a strong interest in adjudicating a derivative suit alleging that officers and directors mismanaged a corporation created under its law.

The defendants voluntarily accepted positions carrying powers, responsibilities, and benefits defined by Delaware law. That continuing fiduciary relationship, together with Delaware's interest in enforcing its corporate law and protecting its domestic corporations and shareholders, could constitute minimum contacts. Although another forum might ultimately be preferable, that concern would go to forum non conveniens, not to the constitutional minimum required for jurisdiction.