Facts of the Case
Dennis and Francie Burnham were married in 1976 and moved to New Jersey in 1977. In July of 1987, they decided to separate and agreed that Mrs. Burnham would take custody of the children, move to California, and file for divorce citing irreconcilable differences. In October of 1987, Mr. Burnham filed for divorce in New Jersey citing desertion. Mrs. Burnham successfully demanded that Mr. Burnham respect their previous agreement and filed for divorce in California in January 1988. Later that month, Mr. Burnham was in California on business and visited his children. While there, he was served with a California court summons and a copy of the divorce petition. Later that year, Mr. Burnham appeared before the California Superior Court and moved to quash the petition because the court lacked jurisdiction over him, as his only contacts with California were short business trips. The Superior Court denied the motion and the California Court of Appeal affirmed.
Questions
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit state courts from exercising jurisdiction over a nonresident who was temporarily in the state and was personally served with process in a suit unrelated to his presence in the state?
Conclusions
-
No. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that one of the most firmly established precedents in American judicial history is the fact that states have jurisdiction over nonresidents within their borders. As long as the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” are not offended by the state’s assertion of jurisdiction, there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the addition of a subjective jurisdiction determination to be made by a judge would make the process less fair.
Justice Byron R. White wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. He argued that there is no evidence that the rule allowing states to have jurisdiction over nonresidents had arbitrarily or unfairly violated due process. In his opinion concurring in judgment, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote that historical precedent is not the only factor that should determine whether the jurisdictional issue satisfies the Due Process Clause. He argued that, when a person visits a state, they knowingly and willingly avail themselves of the benefits of that state’s laws, and therefore are subject to them as well. Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined in the opinion concurring in judgment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a separate opinion concurring in judgment where he argued that the majority’s opinion was unnecessarily broad, but he agreed with its conclusion.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: The Originalist Revolution That Wasn’t
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad, the Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania statute that...
