Shaffer v. Heitner
- Decided
- June 24, 1977
- Docket
- 75-1812
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,976 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that “the mutually exclusive sover eignty of the States [is not] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction” — J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011)
- recognizing that “the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States [is not] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction” — J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011)
- holding that ownership of shares in a corporation located in a particular forum is not purposeful availment of that forum — (untitled) (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mb. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The controversy in this case concerns the constitutionality of a Delaware statute that allows a court of that State to take jurisdiction of a lawsuit by sequestering any property of the defendant that happens to be located in Delaware. Appellants contend that the sequestration statute as applied in this case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both because it permits the state courts to exercise jurisdiction despite the absence of sufficient contacts among the defendants, the litigation, and the State of Delaware and because it authorizes the deprivation of defendants’ property without providing adequate procedural safeguards. We find it necessary to consider only the first of these contentions.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.