Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Heitner
433 US 186
(1977)
reasonable and appropriate notice of an in rem proceeding so that he or she recognizes that such
a proceeding directly affects his or her interests. Having property in a state does not give the state
jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated to the property unless the person also passes the
minimum contacts test articulated in the International Shoe decision. If it is unconstitutional to
exercise jurisdiction over the person directly then it should be unconstitutional to assert
jurisdiction indirectly. Plaintiffs argument that Delaware has an interest in asserting jurisdiction
over corporate fiduciaries is not established by Delaware law. Delaware law determines that it
has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants property is in Delaware and not due to
their status as corporate fiduciaries. First, the statute authorizing jurisdiction does not specifically
apply to stockholder derivative actions. Moreover, Plaintiffs inability to secure jurisdiction over
seven of the defendants because they didnt have property in Delaware shows that there is no
necessary relationship between corporate fiduciaries and stockholders. In addition, Plaintiff has
not demonstrated that Delaware is a fair forum. Plaintiff must demonstrate more than the
applicability of Delawares laws to the controversy to establish a basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
argument that Defendants have received benefits from Delaware laws only demonstrates that it
would be appropriate for Delaware law to govern obligations between Defendant and
stockholders. This argument does not require that Delaware be permitted to exercise jurisdiction,
especially considering its lack of a long-arm statute. Concurrence. Justice Stevens: The majority
should not broadly eliminate in rem jurisdiction by stating that there is no personal jurisdiction if
the only contact the defendant has with the forum state is property located in the state. There are
other means of acquiring jurisdiction over local actions that may be unintentionally limited by
this broad language. Justice Brennan (concurring in part and dissenting in part): The Delaware
sequestration statute embodies quasi in rem jurisdiction that is no longer valid. The parties did
not make the minimum contacts test an issue so the court should not have decided this issue.
There is no proper factual record for determining the level of contacts in this case. This is also a
constitutional question, and this decision will reach to all the state statutes that permit quasi in
rem action through sequestration of property. The general rule is that the forum state has
jurisdiction over the directors and officers of a corporation chartered by the state in a shareholder
derivative action. A states valid substantive interests are considerations in assessing the
constitutionality of exercising jurisdiction. Delaware has interests in preventing local
corporations from being victims of foreign stockholders and in regulating its own corporations.
In addition, jurisdiction can be based on out-of-state activities that have foreseeable effects in the
forum state. Delawares failure to express an interest in corporate fiduciaries does not pertain to
the minimum contacts analysis. In addition, there was purposeful availment of the forums laws
because the corporate officers entered business relationships with Greyhounds stockholders
pursuant to the laws of Delaware.
Discussion. As the concurring opinions illustrate, it is highly unlikely a court has personal
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that is absent from the forum state when the only
contact is property owned by the defendant located within the forum state. Even if the property is
connected to the suit, minimum contacts must still be established in compliance with the
International Shoe test.