University:
Morehouse College
Course:
HSOC 416 | Law and Society
Academic year:

2023
Views:

415

Pages:

3
Author:

Alvin Bradford

CASE BRIEFING FORM Burnham v. Superior Court Date of Case: 1990 Name of Court: U.S. Supreme Court Citation: 495 U.S. 604 (1990) Casebook page no. 148 Parties’ Identities/Description (How do identities frame/inform the controversy?) AT/P: Dennis Burnham AE/D: Superior Court Procedural History (What has happened in the courts up to this point?) California courts refused to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Key Facts (Short narrative of determinative facts and necessary contextual details.) Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham. In 1987 they decided to separate. Mrs Burham brought suit for divorce in California state court in 1988 while Mr Burnham was living in NJ. In late January, Mr Burnham visited CA to see their children and Mrs Burnham served her when he arrived at the home. Mr. Burnham then returned to NJ. Issue(s) (Define the question(s)/dispute(s) before the court.) Does due process require that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the state in cases where the defendant is physically present in the state at the time that he is served? Summary of the Arguments (only essential points of each party’s argument.) Mr Burnham -Shoe should be applied in that he did not have continuous and systematic contacts with the state of CA -From Shaffer, state lacks jurisdiction over an individual unless the litigation arises out of his activities with the state Rule (What rule, definition or standard does this case stand for in that the court used it to solve the parties’ dispute?) If a defendant is personally served in the forum state, that state has established personal jurisdiction. It is not necessary that the litigation be related to certain activities of the defendant within the state, or that the defendant have continuous and systematic contacts with the state. Holding(s) (What is the court’s answer on the issue?) Held that personal service establishes personal jurisdiction. Court’s Reasoning (Summarize the court’s thinking, including not only the steps of court’s logic, but also the public policies the court intended to advance.) This is a firmly established part of the American judicial system. Judgment or Order (What did court do as a result of its holding?) Comments/Reflection (Did the court write any instructive dicta? Do you have questions or concerns about the decision? How does opinion relate to others?)