|
''Shaffer v. Heitner'', was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that a defendant's ownership of stock in a corporation incorporated within a state, without more, is insufficient to allow that state courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The case set forth a framework for evaluating when a defendant will be deemed to have minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. ==Facts== Arnold Heitner, who as trustee owned one share of stock in Greyhound Corporation, a Delaware corporation, instituted a shareholder’s derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against 28 of the company's directors and officers. Most of these individuals resided outside Delaware. To secure jurisdiction over these defendants, at the outset of the litigation Heitner filed a motion for an order to "sequester" the shares of Greyhound stock owned by the defendants, meaning that they would be unable to sell the stock. The defendants were notified by certified mail and by publication of a legal notice in a newspaper. By sequestering defendants' property, Delaware sought to exercise ''quasi in rem'' jurisdiction over the defendants. The defendants at issue were not subject to personal jurisdiction because they did not reside in Delaware and had not taken any actions in Delaware that were the subject matter of the lawsuit. However, because Delaware law deemed all stock in Delaware corporations to have a situs within the state, Delaware exercised jurisdiction over the stock itself. The defendants then had the choice of either filing an appearance in the lawsuit, thereby subjecting themselves to jurisdiction, or failing to appear to defend themselves, thus risking losing their stock. The defendants responded by entering a special appearance in the Delaware court for the purpose of moving to quash service of process and to vacate the sequestration order, thus contesting Delaware's exercise of jurisdiction over them. They contended that none of them had ever set foot in Delaware or conducted any activities in that state. They contended that the ''ex parte'' sequestration procedure did not accord them due process of law as required by the Fourteenth Amendment, as construed by Supreme Court cases defining the requirements of personal jurisdiction, and that exercising ''quasi in rem'' jurisdiction over property in the forum state that was unrelated to the subject-matter of the litigation was constitutionally impermissible. As the Supreme Court explained:
The defendants sought review by the United States Supreme Court, which granted ''certiorari''. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Shaffer v. Heitner」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|