Opinion ID: 1540447
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: implied consent to specific jurisdiction

Text: According to our analysis of the due process precedents, a search for minimum contacts is only required to support an assertion of jurisdiction based upon the legal fiction of implied consent. An express consent to jurisdiction, in and of itself, satisfies the requirements of due process. However, we are mindful that the United States Supreme Court has stated that all assertions of state court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 212, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2584, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). The Court of Chancery construed that language in the Shaffer decision as requiring the application of a minimum contact analysis, even when a foreign corporation has registered to do business. Sternberg v. O'Neil, Del.Ch., 532 A.2d 993, 996 (1987). However, we find when that statement from Shaffer is read in context, it stands for the proposition that all assertions of state court jurisdiction based upon legal fictions must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe. [20] In International Shoe, the legal fiction was implied consent to jurisdiction. In Shaffer, the legal fiction was that in rem actions are proceedings against property rather than people. The Court rejected that legal fiction and concluded [t]he fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the owner of the property supports an ancient form without substantial modern justification. Its continued acceptance would serve only to allow state-court jurisdiction that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. at 212, 97 S.Ct. at 2584. Therefore, Shaffer extended the due process minimum contact jurisdictional requirement set forth in International Shoe to in rem actions. A reading of Shaffer, in the context of legal fictions, is consistent with the court's later statement that where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, who has not consented to suit there, due process is satisfied if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182 (1985) (emphasis added). However, despite our conclusion that a minimum contact analysis is not required, [21] in view of the broad language in Shaffer, we will examine Sternberg's claim according to the standards enunciated in International Shoe.