# Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 29, 1990 · 495 U.S. 604

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432021

## Case

- **Full name:** Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin (Burnham, Real Party in Interest)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 29, 1990
- **Citations:** 495 U.S. 604; 58 U.S.L.W. 4629; 110 S. Ct. 2105; 109 L. Ed. 2d 631; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2700
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by White
- **Judges:** Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, White, Ii-A, Ii-B, Ii-C, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 605 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by James v. Illinois Central Railroad, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 1227 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432021

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- holding that once a court acquired personal jurisdiction over an individual through personal service, the court could retain personal jurisdiction to enter judgment even after the individual left the state

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432021. Public record. Not legal advice.