| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Heitner owns a share of Greyhound stock. He's suing officers and directors. He gets a "sequestration order" to seize a bunch of their stock. |
| Posture: | A bunch of the directors appear specially challenging jurisdiction. Appeal from a ruling of the DE courts asserting that in rem jurisdiction is valid here. |
| Issue: | Does the ex parte seizure of some assets give the defendants the due process they're entitled to? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | All assertions of state court jurisdiction have to follow International Shoe. |
| Reasoning: | Presence of property in a state does not alone confer jurisdiction. And anyway, just the fact that their stock is in DE doesn't mean they have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities there. |
| Dicta: | Powell, concurring: yeah, but maybe with real property in rem
would be OK still.
Stevens, concurring: just buying stock can't make you amenable to suit in a new jurisdiction. Brennan, concurring and dissenting: They did voluntarily associate themselves: they were officers in the corporation! |