{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Shaffer v. Heitner - Shaffer v Heitner 433 U.S 186(1977...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 (1977) Fact: Operative Facts: The Greyhound Corp. shareholders filed a shareholder’s derivative suit in Delaware, the state of incorporation, against the officers of the company because they violated an antitrust law, which cost the company millions of dollars. At the same time, Heitner filed a motion for an order to sequestration of the Delaware property of the individual defendants, mainly their stocks, and options in the company. The officers claimed that the taking away of their property, violated their due process. Issue: Whether the taking of the property violated their due process, and would a fourm have enough jurisdiction over the interest of persons in a thing. Rule: There is personal jurisdiction if a person have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. In rem does not auto in personma jurisdiction. Rational:
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online