# Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 26, 1978 · 436 U.S. 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427179

## Case

- **Full name:** Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco (Horn, Real Party in Interest)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 436 U.S. 84; 98 S. Ct. 1690; 56 L. Ed. 2d 132; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 87
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brennan
- **Judges:** Marshall, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnqtjist, Stevens, Brennan, White, Powell
- **Cited by:** 1,490 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427179

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a forum state could not obtain personal jurisdiction over a parent in a custody action simply because the parent agreed to a visitation arrangement with the other parent and the other parent took the child to the forum state and initiated suit, as this would “arbi…
- holding that, although California’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a New York resident was unreasonable, “a New York court would clearly 17 have personal jurisdiction over [the defendant] and, if a judgment were entered by a New York court . . . , it could properly be…
- holding that father who acquiesced to daughter’s living with mother who moved to California following marital separation did not purposefully avail himself of benefits and protections of California law to satisfy due process requirements
- holding 680 M. K. N. v. Dabbour that a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non- resident, nondomiciliary parent of minor children domiciled within the state would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- finding that personal jurisdiction over nonresident father was not reasonable under due process standards, although welfare of resident children may justify application of California law in action for child support

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Powell join,
dissenting.
The Court properly treats this case as presenting a single narrow question. That question is whether the California Supreme Court correctly “weighed” “the facts,” ante, at 92, of this particular case in applying the settled “constitutional standard,” ibid., that before state courts may exercise in *102 personam jurisdiction over a nonresident, nondomiciliary parent of minor children domiciled in the State, it must appear that the nonresident has “certain minimum contacts [with the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.5 '' International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945). The Court recognizes that “this determination is one in which few answers will be written 'in black and white/ '' ante, at 92. I cannot say that the Court's determination against state-court in personam jurisdiction is implausible, but, though the issue is close, my independent weighing of the facts leads me to conclude, in agreement with the analysis and determination of the California Supreme Court, that appellant's connection with the State of California was not too attenuated, under the standards of reasonableness and fairness implicit in the Due Process Clause, to require him to conduct his defense in the California courts. I therefore dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427179. Public record. Not legal advice.