Shaffer v. Heitner

433 U.S. 186 (1977)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Heitner (the plaintiff), sought jurisdiction over non-resident corporate officers in Delaware based on their stock ownership in Greyhound Corporation. The officers challenged the jurisdiction, arguing that they lacked minimum contacts with the state. The court ruled in favor of the officers, stating that stock ownership alone did not establish minimum contacts.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Heitner (plaintiff) was a non-residential owner of one share of Greyhound stock. He selected Delaware as it was the state of the company’s incorporation. Only seven of the 28 corporate officers in the suit resided in Delaware.

Jurisdiction in Delaware over the non-resident officers was based on their ownership of Greyhound stock, which was deemed to be located within the state of incorporation, Delaware. Heitner also filed a motion for an order of sequestration (a freeze order) on the corporate books.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon

Non-resident corporate officers, represented by Shaffer, challenged this freeze order, arguing that the sequestration order violated their due process rights.

While Delaware law did permit plaintiffs to seize property within the state to compel another party to submit to personal jurisdiction, Shaffer and other officers argued that they lacked minimum contacts with Delaware. The lower courts upheld the statute, stating that it was not used to seize a defendant’s property but to bring defendants to court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the state of Delaware had the authority to oversee Greyhound Corporation’s officers due to their stock ownership, despite their limited connections to the state.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

Personal jurisdiction over a defendant requires establishing minimum contacts, even if the defendant has property in the forum state.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The court ruled that the officers’ stock ownership in Delaware did not establish minimum contact or independently satisfy the minimum contact test. Neither the stock in Delaware nor the officers had any individual contacts within Delaware state or relation to the controversy, nor did the injury occur there.

Thus, jurisdiction in Delaware was deemed improper. The Fourteenth Amendment’s importance of due process, equal protection, and the interests of fair play and substantial justice necessitated this outcome.


Conclusion Icon

The court held that personal jurisdiction over a non-resident requires establishing minimum contacts with the forum state. Thus, the Delaware court did not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident officers.

Concurring Opinions

Judge Icon

Justice Powell supported the majority opinion but added that personal jurisdiction should be appropriate even without satisfying the minimum contacts test if the defendant owned real estate in the forum state.

Justice Stevens also agreed with the majority but stated that purchasing stock should not result in jurisdiction over an individual in the state of the company’s incorporation under an in rem theory.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Icon

Justice Brennan partially agreed and dissented. He argued that the Delaware statute should be found unconstitutional and no state law should compel personal jurisdiction through quasi in rem seizure of property.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. Ownership of a company’s stock does not automatically confer personal jurisdiction in the company’s state of incorporation.
  2. A State’s claim on a person’s property potentially violating their due process rights.
  3. Jurisdiction over a non-resident requires establishing minimum contacts with the state, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What is personal jurisdiction, and why is it important in legal proceedings?

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to make legal decisions about a person or entity. It’s crucial in legal proceedings to ensure fairness and due process protection.

  • For example: If a person is sued in a state where they have no connections, subjecting them to that state’s laws and courts may be unfair.

How does the Constitution's due process clause relate to personal jurisdiction?

The due process clause ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without a fair legal process. In the context of personal jurisdiction, it means that before a court can exercise authority over someone, that person must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to justify the court’s jurisdiction. This protects against arbitrary legal actions and respects individuals’ rights.

What distinguishes the in rem theory from personal jurisdiction based on minimum contacts?

In rem jurisdiction involves cases where the court’s authority is directed towards property rather than a person. In contrast, personal jurisdiction based on minimum contacts focuses on whether an individual or entity has sufficient connections to a particular state to be subject to its laws and courts. In rem deals with property rights, while minimum contacts relate to legal actions against individuals or entities.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure