Court Opinion

ID: 9426936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:18.145343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.925006
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I agree that the principles of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), should be extended to govern assertions of in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction in a state court. I also agree that neither the statutory presence of appellants’ stock in Delaware nor their positions as directors and officers of a Delaware corporation can provide sufficient contacts to support the Delaware courts’ assertion of jurisdiction in this case.
I would explicitly reserve judgment, however, on whether the ownership of some forms of property whose situs is indisputably and permanently located within a State may, without more, provide the contacts necessary to subject a defendant to jurisdiction within the State to the extent of the value of the property. In the case of real property, in particular, preservation of the common-law concept of quasi in rem jurisdiction arguably would avoid the uncertainty of the general International Shoe standard without significant cost to “ Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940).
Subject to the foregoing reservation, I join the opinion of the Court.