BURNHAM V. SUPERIOR COURT by JohnMValentine

VIEWS: 22 PAGES: 1

									CIV PRO BURNHAM V. SUPERIOR COURT, US Supreme Court (1990) History: Burnham moved to quash service; Superior Court denied motion; CA Court of Appeal denied mandamus relief Facts: Couple married in WV and moved to NJ, where 2 kids born; separated; Mrs. Burnham moved to CA, too children; she was supposed to file for divorce on grounds of “irreconcilable differences”; husband filed in NJ on “desertion” but didn’t obtain issuance of summons and didn’t try to serve her; wife was pissed about him not using differences claim and brought suit for divorce in CA state court Husband visited S CA on business and visited kids in Frisco, upon coming back, he was served w/CA court summons and copy of wife’s divorce petition; then he went back to NJ Issue(s): Whether Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment denies CA courts jurisdiction over a nonresident, who was personally served w/process while temporarily in that state, in a suit unrelated to his activities w/the State. Holding: Judgment affirmed—there is jurisdiction Analysis: Pennoyer v. Neff said you had to be there to have jurisdiction; Int’l Shoe said there had to be minimal contacts


								
To top