The case involves the constitutionality of a Delaware law that allows a court to take jurisdiction of a lawsuit by seizing any property of the defendant located in Delaware. The defendants argue that the law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The collapse of the in personam wing of Pennoyer has weakened the foundation for in rem jurisdiction, and lower court opinions have questioned the idea that the presence of property in a state automatically gives that state jurisdiction to adjudicate rights to the property. The Supreme Court has held that property cannot be subjected to a court's judgment unless reasonable and appropriate efforts have been made to give the property owners actual notice of the action. The Due Process Clause does not allow a state to make a binding judgment against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. Therefore, the state of Delaware didn't have the authority to make a decision in this case. The decision made by the Delaware Supreme Court is cancelled, and one of the judges didn't take part in the decision.

Justice Powell agrees that the principles of International Shoe Co. v. Washington should apply to both in rem and in personam jurisdiction in state courts. He also agrees that the presence of stock and positions as directors and officers of a Delaware corporation are not enough to support jurisdiction in this case. However, he is undecided on whether ownership of certain property located within a state may provide the necessary contacts for jurisdiction. He suggests that the common-law concept of quasi in rem jurisdiction may be appropriate for real property. He concurs with the opinion of the Court except for his reservation.

The Due Process Clause requires reasonable assurance of actual notice to the defendant in in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction cases. Fair notice includes warning that an activity may subject a person to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. Purchasing securities in the domestic market should not subject one's property and affairs to the laws of the corporation's domicile nation. The Delaware sequestration statute creates an unacceptable risk of judgment without notice for those who purchase shares of stock on the open market. This coerces the defendant to either submit to personal jurisdiction in a forum that could not otherwise obtain such jurisdiction or lose the securities that have been attached. The procedure would impose a duty of inquiry on every purchaser of securities in the national market, which is unconstitutional on its face.

The Court found Delaware's quasi in rem jurisdiction statute invalid and unconstitutional in a shareholder derivative action. The author disagrees with the Court's ruling on minimum contacts and argues that a state has a vested interest in securing an appropriate venue to settle claims involving multiple defendant fiduciaries and enforce its substantive policies with regard to the management of domestic corporations. Delaware has a significant interest in providing compensation for its local corporations that have been allegedly victimized by fiduciary misconduct and a recognized interest in providing a convenient forum for supervising and overseeing the affairs of a state-chartered corporation.