Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon
Shaffer v. Heitner
Citation:433 US 186 (1977)
ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Heitner filed a shareholder’s derivative lawsuit against Greyhound Corp., a subsidiary, and 28 of its then-present and former officers or directors, seeking damages arising out of events that took place in Oregon. Simultaneously with the filing of the lawsuit, Heitner filed a motion for an order of sequestration of Delaware property, in the form of Greyhound Corp. stock, of the individual defendants. The sequestration motion was granted by the Delaware court; the court’s order provided for the seizure of stock held by the Appellants (21 of the parties whose stock was seized, referred to as “Appellants” by the Court). The stock was considered to be in Delaware and subject to the seizure based on a state statute that made Delaware the situs of ownership of all stock in Delaware corporations. The Appellants entered a special appearance in order to move to quash service of process and vacate the sequestration order, arguing that the ex parte sequestration procedure denied them due process, that the property seized could not be attached in Delaware and that they did not have contacts with Delaware that provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under the minimum contacts rule of International Shoe. The Delaware court rejected these arguments and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.