Law School Resources
BURNHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CAL., MARIN COUNTY, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
A party who receives service of process (formal notification that they are being
sued) while physically present in a state is properly subject to personal
jurisdiction in that state. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878). The current
justification for the rule is uncertain. In Burnham v. Superior Court of
California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), the Court unanimously agreed that this rule was
still effective, but split as to the rationale. Justice Scalia wrote for four
justices who felt that the rule should apply simply because it was a
continuation of a longstanding tradition. Justice Brennan wrote for four
justices who felt that the rule should apply because the party was purposefully
availing himself of the benefits of being in the state at that time, and that
the rule was fair under modern standards because it was well known, therefore
putting defendants on notice of their susceptibility to suit in a state if
physically present. The ninth vote, by Justice Stevens, agreed that jurisdiction
was proper, but did not endorse either Scalia's or Brennan's test.
Burnham was a United States Supreme Court case related to the issue of personal
jurisdiction. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the plurality opinion.The case limited the application of the Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977)
to only quasi in rem jurisdiction questions and revived the ability of the
states to assert power over individuals where International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) minimum contacts, fair play and substantial
justice tests are not met. Justice Scalia explained that this discrepancy in law
has a place because it is a legal tradition. Legal tradition in a way brought by
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Pure territoriality is absolute in Justice
Scalia's opinion.
The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment denies California courts jurisdiction over a nonresident,
who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a
suit unrelated to his activities in the State.
Simply asks, whether transient jurisdiction is still with us today? Yes. If you
serve process to the defendant in the forum state, no matter how fleetingly, you
got him or her. However, the concept of transient jurisdiction wont work when
the defendant is fraudulently lured into the forum state.
… Because the Due Process Clause does not prohibit the California courts from
exercising jurisdiction over petitioner based on the fact of in-state service of
process, the judgment is Affirmed.
|