Burnham v. Superior Court of California
| Burnham v. Superior Court | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 28, 1990 Decided May 29, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Dennis Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin |
| Citations | 495 U.S. 604 (more) 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631. |
| Holding | |
| Personal jurisdiction can be had over a nonresident who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the State. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy; White (all but parts II-D and III) |
| Concurrence | White |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | |
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the transient jurisdiction of a forum state. All nine justices were unanimous concerning the judgment, but the Court issued a fractured decision. Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment and wrote an opinion that was joined by three other justices as to parts I, II-A, II-B and II-C, while Justice Byron White did not join in parts II-D and III. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a concurring opinion that three other justices joined. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion that approved of the reasoning found in all the other opinions, but did not join in any of them, leaving the case without a controlling decision.
Procedural and factual history
In July 1987 New Jersey married couple Dennis and Francie Burnham decided to get divorced. That same month Francie moved to California with the couple's two children, after Dennis and Francie agreed that Francie would file for divorce on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences." Instead, in October 1987, Dennis filed for divorce in New Jersey state court on grounds of "desertion," although he did not obtain a summons or attempt to serve Francie with process. After trying and failing to convince Dennis to follow their prior agreement, Francie brought suit for divorce in California state court in early January 1988. In late January, Dennis went to California on business, and afterward visited his Children at Francie's home. Dennis took the older child to visit San Francisco for the weekend, and upon returning the child to Francie's home January 24, 1988, he was served with a California court summons. Dennis made an unsuccessful special appearance in the Superior Court of Marin County later that year to quash the service of process, claiming that Dennis, a non-resident lacked the minimum contacts with California to establish personal jurisdiction over him. Dennis then filed for mandamus relief in the California Court of Appeal for the First District on the grounds that the decision below violated his due process rights, guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. His appeal was denied by the California Court of Appeal and in 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.[1]. The case was argued on February 28, 1990 and decided on May 29, 1990.[2]
Issue and result
 | This article is missing information about section. (January 2010) |
In the personal jurisdiction cases preceding Burnham, the Court held that under American law exercises personal jurisdiction were unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the Fourteen Amendment unless they comported to "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" when the defendant was not personally served in the forum state. [3] The issue is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment denies CA courts jurisdiction over a nonresident, who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a lawsuit unrelated to his activities in the State. The Court ruled that California had personal jurisdiction over Burnham. The forum state had jurisdiction over plaintiff after he was served with process while temporarily in the state for activities unrelated to the pending divorce action. Due process under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV was satisfied because nothing in the line of cases supporting the minimum contacts doctrine supported the proposition that physical presence was itself insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 495
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
External links
References
- Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin 495 U.S. 604
- ^ 493 U.S. 807
- ^ "Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin", Oyez Project. [1] (accessed ~~~~~).
- ^ personal jurisdiction