Burnham v. Superior Court of California
Doctrine Established:Transient (Tag) Jurisdiction
Why is Burnham v. Superior Court of California significant?
Burnham unanimously upheld the validity of transient jurisdiction (tag jurisdiction), holding that personal service on a defendant physically present in the forum state is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, regardless of the minimum contacts analysis. The case confirmed that the traditional basis for jurisdiction recognized in Pennoyer survived International Shoe.
Source: Read Burnham v. Superior Court of California on Google Scholar
Why This Case Matters
Burnham unanimously upheld the validity of transient jurisdiction (tag jurisdiction), holding that personal service on a defendant physically present in the forum state is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, regardless of the minimum contacts analysis. The case confirmed that the traditional basis for jurisdiction recognized in Pennoyer survived International Shoe.
Facts
Dennis Burnham and his wife Francie separated, with Francie moving to California with the couple's two children while Dennis remained in New Jersey. Francie filed for divorce in California state court. Dennis traveled to California on business and also to visit the children, and during that visit he was personally served with the divorce petition. Dennis had no other contacts with California relevant to the suit.
Procedural History
Dennis moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that his presence in California was transient and not related to the divorce action. The California Superior Court denied the motion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed in a summary denial, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment denies a state court jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is personally served with process while temporarily present in the state, even though the cause of action is unrelated to his activities there.
Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously held that California could exercise jurisdiction over Burnham. Personal service on a physically present defendant is a traditionally recognized basis for jurisdiction that satisfies due process. However, the Justices were unable to agree on a single rationale.
Reasoning & Analysis
Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, argued that transient jurisdiction is constitutional because it was a firmly established tradition at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted and has continued without interruption. Under this historical pedigree approach, no minimum contacts analysis is needed for in-state service. Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the methodology, arguing that all assertions of jurisdiction must be evaluated under the International Shoe minimum contacts framework. He concluded that transient presence satisfies minimum contacts because a person who is served in a state has deliberately chosen to be there and enjoys the benefits and protections of the state's laws during that visit.
Key Quotes
“The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'”
“Among the most firmly established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition is that the courts of a State have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the State.”
“By visiting the forum State, a transient defendant actually 'avail[s]' himself of significant benefits provided by the State.”
Legacy & Impact
Burnham preserved tag jurisdiction as a valid basis for personal jurisdiction alongside the minimum contacts test. The case is practically significant because it means any individual can be subject to jurisdiction in any state where they are personally served, regardless of whether the lawsuit has any connection to that state. The split between the Scalia and Brennan rationales created ongoing academic debate about whether purely traditional bases for jurisdiction can survive independently of the International Shoe framework.
Exam Relevance
Burnham is commonly tested through hypotheticals where a defendant is served while briefly visiting a state for unrelated reasons. Students should be prepared to discuss both the Scalia historical pedigree approach and the Brennan minimum contacts approach. Exams may also ask whether tag jurisdiction applies to corporations or only to individuals.
Study Tips
- 1Know the difference between the Scalia plurality rationale (historical pedigree) and the Brennan concurrence rationale (transient presence satisfies minimum contacts).
- 2Remember that Burnham applies to individuals, not corporations. Corporate general jurisdiction was narrowed in Daimler.
- 3Understand how Burnham relates back to Pennoyer: it preserved the traditional physical-presence basis for jurisdiction within the International Shoe era.
- 4Be prepared to argue whether tag jurisdiction should survive if it conflicts with modern notions of fairness.