Burnham v. Superior Court of Cali

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cali - in their territorty....

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Burnham v. Superior Court of California 495 U.S. 604 (1990) Fact: Operative Facts: Mr. and Mrs. Burnham lived in New Jersey and decided to have a divorce. They had 2 kids. Before Mrs. Burnham left, the two decided to file divorce on grounds of “irreconcilable differences,” and after she left, Mr. Burnham filed the divorce in New Jersey as “desertion.” They fought over that, so Mrs. Burnham brought suit for divorce in California. In Jan. Mr. Burnham came to California on business, and went to visit his children. After his visit, before he left, he was served with a California court summons, and Mrs. Burnham’s divorce petition. He returned to New Jersey. Issue: Whether being served was enough to establish personal jurisdiction in a forum. Rule: If a person is found in a forum, that forum may exercise jurisdiction over all persona within its domain. Rational: It is a traditional principle. The whole “traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice” is part of this. But really, again, its because territories has jurisdiction on anyone who is
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: in their territorty. Also, International shoes only applies to the absents of a person in a territory. There is one thing to note: He came to California voluntarily. Had it been through duress or forced, then it would have been different. It is a totality of the circumstances test. Holding: Tag jurisdiction statute adopted by a state is constitutional, consistent with due process. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Justice White concurring in part. And in judgment. Stating that, it’s so traditional, and unless it completely in all ways grossly violates due process, it’ll still stand. Justice Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and O’Connor concurs in judgment. They actually evaluate the comment under a due process notion. By going to a state, the defendant avails himself of significant benefits provided by the State. Justice Stevens concur. He agrees w/ parts of everyone....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CIV PRO 141 taught by Professor Daucher during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online