New Hampshire
How Burnham v. Superior Court applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
New Hampshire recognizes the principles established in Burnham v. Superior Court regarding personal jurisdiction over defendants based on their physical presence in the state. The state adheres to the International Shoe Co. v. Washington standard of 'minimum contacts', yet it also considers the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
In New Hampshire, a court can assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if they are physically present in the state at the time of service, consistent with the principles of Burnham.
Established that mere physical presence at the time of service is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction even if the defendant lacks other connections to the state.
Reaffirmed the importance of physical presence as a basis of jurisdiction, distinguishing it from cases requiring a contact analysis.
Held that personal jurisdiction is valid when a defendant is served while engaged in business activities within the state, aligning with Burnham's principles.
While New Hampshire applies the physical presence rule similarly to federal standards established in Burnham, it emphasizes the state's peculiarities concerning fair play, which may diverge from more flexible interpretations under federal law. However, both frameworks support jurisdiction rooted in the defendant's physical presence.
Bar exam candidates in New Hampshire should familiarize themselves with principles of personal jurisdiction, particularly regarding physical presence and its implications for out-of-state defendants, as these are common topics.