## Facts

- Dennis Burnham (domiciled in New Jersey) and Francie Burnham separated; Francie moved to California with the children.
- Dennis filed a New Jersey divorce action that did not seek support or property division.
- Francie filed a California divorce action in Marin County.
- During a brief trip to California for business and to visit his children, Dennis was personally served in Marin County with a summons and Francie’s divorce petition while dropping off the children at Francie’s home.
- Dennis made a special appearance in California and moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who is personally served while temporarily present in the state, even when the suit is unrelated to the defendant’s in-state activities.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California courts.
- The Court unanimously held that due process allows jurisdiction over a nonresident personally served while temporarily in the forum state, even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s activities there.
- No single majority opinion supplied a single rationale:
  - A plurality treated historical acceptance of “tag” jurisdiction as sufficient to satisfy due process.
  - A concurrence would assess transient service under modern minimum-contacts and fairness analysis, concluding it is ordinarily fair when presence is voluntary.
  - Separate concurrences agreed the case could be resolved without choosing a comprehensive theory for all jurisdiction questions.

## Legal Principles

- Personal service on an individual who is voluntarily and physically present in the forum state is a constitutionally sufficient basis for in personam jurisdiction (“tag” or transient jurisdiction).
- International Shoe’s minimum-contacts framework does not eliminate historically recognized bases of jurisdiction where the defendant is physically present and served in the forum.
- Traditional practice and the absence of unfairness strongly support the constitutionality of transient jurisdiction; voluntary entry into the forum also supports foreseeability of being sued there.

## Conclusion

A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident based solely on in-state personal service during the defendant’s temporary, voluntary presence, even when the claim does not arise from the defendant’s forum contacts.


Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Cnty. of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)