Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Burnham v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurepersonal jurisdictiontransient presencetag jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictiontag jurisdictiontransient jurisdictionin-state service

Facts

Dennis Burnham, a New Jersey resident, and his wife had separated, and his wife moved to California with their children. She filed for divorce in California, and while Burnham was temporarily in California on business and then visiting his children, he was personally served with a California summons and divorce petition at his wife's home. Burnham returned to New Jersey and argued that California lacked personal jurisdiction because his only contacts with California were a few short visits for business and to see his children. The divorce action was unrelated to his activities in California.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bar California courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who is personally served with process while temporarily present in the state, when the suit is unrelated to his activities there?

Rule

A state court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who is physically present in the forum and personally served there comports with due process. International Shoe's minimum-contacts analysis governs novel assertions of jurisdiction over absent defendants, not the traditional basis of jurisdiction founded on in-state personal service.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Ellis, an Oregon resident, traveled to Chicago for a one-day architecture conference. While leaving her hotel, she was personally handed an Illinois summons in a Nevada fraud suit filed by Damon Pierce, a Colorado resident, concerning a land deal negotiated entirely in Reno.

If Nora moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, how should the Illinois court rule under the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority held that due process permits a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who is physically present in the forum and personally served there. No showing is required that the claim arise from forum contacts, and the brevity of the visit does not matter. International Shoe minimum-contacts analysis addresses novel assertions of jurisdiction over absent defendants, not this traditional basis of jurisdiction.