holding that service of process upon a non-resident defendant while he is physically present in the forum state confers personal jurisdiction, even though the defendant was only briefly in the state and the litigation did not arise out of his activities there
How later courts described this case
- holding that service of process upon a non-resident defendant while he is physically present in the forum state confers personal jurisdiction, even though the defendant was only briefly in the state and the litigation did not arise out of his activities there
- concluding that “jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’”
- holding that service of process confers state court jurisdiction over physically present nonresident, regardless of whether he was only briefly in state or whether cause of action is related to his activities there
- holding that due process requires no connection between the litigation and the forum state if the defendant is a natural person and is “physically present in the State at the time process is served upon him”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by James v. Illinois Central Railroad, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 1227 (1998)
Further, we refuse to extend the logic of Burnham to the facts before this Court.
Limited by Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (2012)
The district court declined to find jurisdiction on this basis because (1) service of process was not made on Zakharov personally, but was actually made on Zakharov’s agent by certified mail while Zakharov was not present in the state, and (2) because there was no majority opinion in Burnham and it should be limited to its facts, a holding that has some support in other jurisdictions.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C of Justice Scalia’s opinion and concur in the judgment of affirmance. The rule allowing jurisdiction to be obtained over a nonresident by personal service in the forum State, without more, has been and is so widely accepted throughout this country that I could not possibly strike it down, either on its face or as applied in this case, on the ground that it denies due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Court has the authority under the Amendment to examine even traditionally accepted procedures and declare them invalid, e. g., Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977), there has been no showing here or elsewhere that as a general proposition the rule is so arbitrary and lacking in common sense in so many instances that it should be held violative of due process in every case. Furthermore, until such a showing is made, which would be difficult indeed, claims in individual cases that the rule would operate unfairly as applied to the particular nonresident involved need not be entertained. At least this would be the case where presence in the forum State is intentional, which would almost always be the fact. Otherwise, there would be endless, fact-specific litigation in the trial and appellate courts, including this one. Here, personal service in California, without more, is enough, and I agree that the judgment should be affirmed.