United States Supreme Court
433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Heitner (plaintiff) brought a shareholder derivative suit in Delaware against the Greyhound Corporation, incorporated in Delaware, represented by Shaffer, alleging acts that took place in Oregon. Heitner also filed a motion for an order of sequestration of shares of Greyhound stock owned by the individual defendants named in the complaint, who move to vacate the sequestration order on the grounds that the ex parte sequestration violated their due process rights and that the property seized was not capable of attachment in Delaware. The court rejected this challenge on the ground that the suit was brought as a quasi in rem proceeding, which is traditionally based on seizure of property present in the jurisdiction rather than contacts between the defendant and the state.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.