| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin case in 1989 revolved around the issue of personal jurisdiction based on physical presence within a state. The petitioner, Dennis Burnham, was a New Jersey resident who visited California for business and to visit his children. His estranged wife, who had moved to California with their children during separation proceedings in New Jersey, served him divorce papers while he was there. He contested that the Californian courts did not have jurisdiction over him as he wasn't a resident and his visit was temporary. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that being physically present in a state is enough for its courts to exercise jurisdiction over an individual regardless of how brief or transient such presence may be. This decision upheld traditional notions about states' territorial authority despite changes brought by modern transportation and communication technologies.
In the dissenting opinion for Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Justice Brennan argued that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice were not met by the mere physical presence requirement for personal jurisdiction. He contended that a more modern approach to due process should be adopted in light of advancements in transportation and communication technologies which have made it easier for people to travel across state lines. This would involve considering factors such as the burden on the defendant, interests of the forum state, plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief, interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies and shared policy interests among states. In this case where Mr. Burnham was served while temporarily present within California but had no other relevant contacts with this State related to his wife's suit for divorce there; he believed that exercise of jurisdiction over him did not meet these standards because it placed an undue burden on out-of-state defendants without sufficiently furthering any important interests held by either California or Mrs.Burnham.