# 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/9432023

## 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:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **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/9432023

## 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 Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
As I explained in my separate writing, I did not join the Court’s opinion in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977), because I was concerned by its unnecessarily broad reach. Id,., at 217-219 (opinion concurring in judgment). The same concern prevents me from joining either Justice Scalia’s or Justice Brennan’s opinion in this case. For me, it is sufficient to note that the historical evidence and consensus identified by Justice Scalia, the considerations of fairness identified by Justice Brennan, and the common sense displayed by Justice White, all combine to demonstrate that this is, indeed, a very easy case. * Accordingly, I agree that the judgment should be affirmed.
Perhaps the adage about hard eases making bad law should be revised to cover easy cases.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432023. Public record. Not legal advice.