# Shaffer v. Heitner

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 1977 · 433 U.S. 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426936

## Case

- **Full name:** SHAFFER Et Al. v. HEITNER
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 24, 1977
- **Citations:** 433 U.S. 186; 97 S. Ct. 2569; 53 L. Ed. 2d 683; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 139
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Powell
- **Judges:** Marshall, Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, Stevens, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 2,700 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Holzsager v. Valley Hospital, 482 F. Supp. 629 (1979).
- Negative treatments: 4
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426936

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “the mutually exclusive sover eignty of the States [is not] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction”
- recognizing that “the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States [is not] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction”
- concluding that “in order to justify an exercise of jurisdiction in rem, the basis for jurisdiction must be sufficient to justify exercising jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing” and that “[t]he standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction over…
- explaining that mere ownership of stock in a Delaware corporation, without more, was insufficient to form a constitutionally sufficient basis for the court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over the stockholder, because the stock sequestered was "not the subject matter of […
- stating that once a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties determines that one person is a debtor to another, there should be no due process problem in the judgment creditor's realizing upon the property of the judgment debtor in another state in which…

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I agree that the principles of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), should be extended to govern assertions of in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction in a state court. I also agree that neither the statutory presence of appellants’ stock in Delaware nor their positions as directors and officers of a Delaware corporation can provide sufficient contacts to support the Delaware courts’ assertion of jurisdiction in this case.
I would explicitly reserve judgment, however, on whether the ownership of some forms of property whose situs is indisputably and permanently located within a State may, without more, provide the contacts necessary to subject a defendant to jurisdiction within the State to the extent of the value of the property. In the case of real property, in particular, preservation of the common-law concept of quasi in rem jurisdiction arguably would avoid the uncertainty of the general International Shoe standard without significant cost to “ Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316 , quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940).
Subject to the foregoing reservation, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426936. Public record. Not legal advice.