|
BURNHAM
v. SUPERIOR COURT
Casebook Pgs. 160-169
Author: Anon
Procedural
Basis: Writ of certiorari reviewing denial of mandamus relief
following denial of motion to quash service of process in divorce
action.
Facts:
Burnham (P), a resident of Cal, brought suit for divorce against
her husband ?, in California State Court. Mr. Burnham ? was
served with the summons and complaint while voluntarily visiting
Cal for three days. Burnham’s presence in Cal was
unrelated to the divorce action. Burnham ? made a special
appearance in Cal Superior Court, moving to quash the service of
process. He argued that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction b/c his only contacts with the state were a few
short business trips and to visit his daughters. Superior
Court denied the motion. The California Court of Appeal
denied mandamus relief, holding that physical presence and
personal service in the forum state constituted valid grounds for
jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue:
Does transient jurisdiction, obtained by a Def’s physical
presence in the forum state, violate due process?
Rule:
Jurisdiction based on physical presence comports with due
process, regardless of the D’s contacts with the forum
state.
Analysis:
Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone satisfies due
process b/c it is consistent with “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.”
Conclusion:
The Cal State Ct. could exercise jurisdiction over Burnham ?
based on in-state service of process. Judgment affirmed.
Concurrence:
(White) Jurisdiction by personal service is so widely accepted
that it should not be struck down as violative of the 14th
Amendment Due Process Clause.
Concurrence:
(Brennan) a ?’s voluntary presence in the forum state
satisfies the requirements of due process.
|
