Burnham v. Superior Court
495 U.S. 604 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated by a state court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who is personally served with process while temporarily and voluntarily present in the forum state.
Facts:
- Dennis Burnham and Francie Burnham married in 1976 and later moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born.
- In July 1987, the couple decided to separate and agreed that Francie Burnham would move to California with the children and would file for divorce based on 'irreconcilable differences'.
- In October 1987, Dennis Burnham filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of 'desertion' but did not serve his wife with process.
- In early January 1988, Francie Burnham filed for divorce in California state court.
- In late January 1988, Dennis Burnham traveled to Southern California for business and then went to Northern California to visit his children.
- On January 24, 1988, while returning his child to Francie Burnham's home, Dennis Burnham was personally served with a California court summons and divorce petition.
Procedural Posture:
- Francie Burnham sued Dennis Burnham for divorce in California Superior Court.
- Dennis Burnham, a New Jersey resident, made a special appearance in the California Superior Court to file a motion to quash the service of process.
- Burnham argued the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him as his contacts with California were insufficient.
- The Superior Court (trial court) denied the motion.
- The California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) denied mandamus relief, affirming the trial court's decision.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the jurisdictional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment deny a state court jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state, in a lawsuit unrelated to his activities in the state?
Opinions:
Plurality - Justice Scalia
No. The Due Process Clause does not deny California courts jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is served in the state. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone is a long-standing tradition that satisfies the constitutional standard of 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' The minimum contacts analysis established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington applies to absent defendants and was not intended to invalidate the traditional, and still universally accepted, basis of in-state personal service. The pedigree of this jurisdictional rule is its validation, making a separate inquiry into its 'fairness' unnecessary. Shaffer v. Heitner, which applied International Shoe's standards to quasi in rem actions, did not extend its holding to cases where a defendant is physically present and served in the forum.
Concurrence - Justice White
No. The rule permitting jurisdiction based on in-state personal service is so widely accepted throughout the United States that it cannot be struck down on due process grounds. There has been no showing that the rule is generally so arbitrary or lacking in common sense that it should be held unconstitutional in every case. To avoid endless, fact-specific litigation over fairness in individual cases where a defendant's presence is intentional, the established rule should be upheld.
Concurrence - Justice Brennan
No, but the analysis must go beyond mere tradition. Shaffer v. Heitner requires that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction, even ancient ones, must satisfy contemporary notions of due process and fairness. Although tradition is a relevant factor, it is not dispositive. In this case, the exercise of jurisdiction is fair because a transient defendant who voluntarily visits a state avails himself of significant benefits and protections, such as police, fire, and emergency services, and the use of state roads. This voluntary presence creates a reasonable expectation of being subject to suit there, and the burdens of litigating in a foreign state are slight given modern transportation and communication.
Concurrence - Justice Stevens
No. This is a very easy case where the historical evidence and consensus identified by Justice Scalia, the fairness considerations identified by Justice Brennan, and the common sense displayed by Justice White all combine to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction is proper. The agreement among these different analytical approaches makes a broad ruling on the underlying theory unnecessary.
Analysis:
Burnham v. Superior Court definitively upholds the constitutionality of 'transient' or 'tag' jurisdiction. However, the Court's fractured decision reveals a deep theoretical split on the proper methodology for Due Process analysis in personal jurisdiction cases. Justice Scalia's plurality opinion champions a historical/traditionalist approach, arguing that long-standing practices are inherently constitutional, while Justice Brennan's concurrence insists that all jurisdictional rules, regardless of pedigree, must be independently evaluated for fairness under contemporary standards. This leaves the underlying jurisprudential debate unresolved, even though the practical rule—that in-state service on a present defendant confers jurisdiction—remains firmly intact.
Unlock the full brief for Burnham v. Superior Court