Talk:Burnham v. Superior Court of California

Issue and result

The case before the Supreme Court called for the resolution of important personal jurisdiction issues.

“ 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.

… 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.

”

The forum state had jurisdiction over plaintiff after he was served w/ process while temporarily in the state for activities unrelated to the pending divorce action. Due process under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV was satisfied because nothing in the line of cases supporting the minimum contacts doctrine supported the proposition that physical presence was itself insufficient to establish jurisdiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.238.203 (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Holding

The case limited the application to questions only of quasi in rem jurisdiction and revived the ability of the several states to assert power over individuals where the requirements under due process of minimum contacts and 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. Pure territoriality is absolute in Justice Scalia's opinion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burnham v. Superior Court of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718090751/http://www.law.pace.edu/dld/CivPro1_Materials/Burnham_Case.pdf to http://www.law.pace.edu/dld/CivPro1_Materials/Burnham_Case.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)