Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin
Headline: Court upholds states’ power to exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents personally served while visiting, allowing in‑state service to support lawsuits even when the case is unrelated to their activities.
Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not bar California courts from asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who was personally served in the State while temporarily present, even though the suit was unrelated to his activities there.
- Allows states to sue nonresidents personally served while visiting.
- Makes it more likely visitors can face lawsuits where they are handed court papers.
- Affirms in‑state service as a valid jurisdictional basis.
Summary
Background
A New Jersey man and his wife separated after many years of marriage. The wife moved to California and filed for divorce there. While the husband made a short visit to California to see the children in January 1988, he was handed a California divorce summons and then returned to New Jersey. He asked the California court to throw out that service, saying he had only brief visits to California and the divorce had nothing to do with his California activities. Lower state courts refused to quash the service, and the case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a State from exercising power over a nonresident who was personally served while temporarily in that State, when the lawsuit is unrelated to the person’s in‑state activities. The majority explained that long American tradition treated physical presence and in‑state personal service as a valid basis for jurisdiction. The opinion distinguished earlier cases that required “minimum contacts” for defendants who were not physically present, and concluded that being served while present in the State is itself enough. Several Justices agreed with the outcome but wrote separate opinions explaining different reasons.
Real world impact
The ruling means states can generally proceed against visiting nonresidents who are personally served while in the State, even for claims not arising from in‑state acts. People traveling to another State can be subject to suit if served there. The decision affirmed the divorce case and left open that legislatures could change state rules if they choose.
Dissents or concurrances
There were no dissents, but concurring Justices emphasized different grounds: some relied on history and tradition, others on fairness and modern standards.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?