The Burnhams, who had married and lived in New Jersey, were going through a divorce when Ms. Burnham moved to California. Mr. Burnham filed the divorce proceedings in New Jersey as “desertion,” contrary to their agreement of “irreconcilable differences.” Ms. Burnham brought suit for divorce in California. While Mr. Burnham was in California for business, he traveled to San Francisco to visit his children, at which time he was served with the California papers.
Procedural History
Burnham made a special appearance to quash the service of process on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because his only contacts were a few short visits for business and his children. Superior Court denied the motion and the Court of Appeal denied relief.
Issue(s)
Did the California courts err in asserting personal jurisdiction over an individual who entered the forum state?
Holding(s)
No.
Reasoning/Analysis
The court found that courts of a state have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state. The Due Process Clause requires analysis to determine whether traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice have been offended. But a doctrine of personal jurisdiction dating back to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and is still generally observed, unquestionably meets that standard.
Judgment/Outcome
The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts.
Concurring Opinions/Dissenting Opinions/Comments
Brennan concurred stating though that history is not the only factor but that Burnham availed himself of the benefits of the state. His health and safety by the police, travel on the roads, and likely enjoying the fruits of the state’s economy. Stevens also concurred that Scalia, Brennan, and White’s (omitted from casebook) approaches all combine.
No comments:
Post a Comment