Burnham v. Superior Court of California
| Burnham v. Superior Court of California | |
|---|---|
|
|
| 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.
|
| Prior history | Writ of certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District |
| Holding | |
| Personal jurisdiction can be exercised 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 (in part) |
| 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, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.
Dennis Burnham and Frances Cecilia (Perelman) Burnham, a married couple residing in New Jersey, decided to divorce. Francie moved to California on July 14, 1987 with the couple's two children. Thereafter she persuaded Dennis to delay filing the divorce action in New Jersey until 18 months of separation would qualify for a "no fault" divorce. Then, several months later in early 1988 and prior to the 6-month residency requirement in California, Francie filed an action for divorce in California Superior Court. Upon learning of this action, Dennis attempted to promptly file and serve the New Jersey action instead of waiting 12 more months. Dennis was served with the summons when he travelled to California to handle an unrelated business matter and visit his children; service was made on a Sunday in the children's home. The following day, Francie was served with the New Jersey summons. Courts later held that the California action was "first in time."
...
Wikipedia