Burnham v. The Supreme Court of California, 495 US 604 (1990), is the case of the United States Supreme Court that discusses whether a state court can, consistent with the Fourth Amendment Process Clause, exercise the personal jurisdiction of a non- served with a temporary process of visiting the country. The nine judges agree unanimously that this basis for personal jurisdiction - known as "temporary jurisdiction" - is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as its members were deeply divided over the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how process issues should be analyzed. Judge Scalia wrote the main opinion, joined in whole or in part by three other Judges. Judge Brennan wrote an opinion followed by three other Judges. White Judges and Stevens wrote separate opinions.
Video Burnham v. Superior Court of California
Procedural and factual history
Dennis Burnham and Frances Cecilia (Perelman) Burnham, a married couple living in New Jersey, decided to divorce. Francie moved to California on July 14, 1987 with the couple's two children. After that he persuaded Dennis to postpone filing for divorce in New Jersey until 18 months of separation would qualify for a divorce "fault". Then, a few months later in early 1988 and before the 6-month residency requirement in California, Francie filed for divorce at the California High Court. After studying this action, Dennis attempted to immediately file and serve New Jersey action rather than wait another 12 months. Dennis is served with a summons when he goes to California to deal with unrelated business issues and visit his children; service is done on Sundays in children's homes. The next day, Francie is served with a New Jersey call. The court then ruled that California's actions were "first time."
Dennis filed a "special appearance" in California court and moved to cancel the service process. He argues that he is a non-resident of California and has no relationship with California enough to build personal jurisdiction on it consistent with the Fourth Amendment Process Clause. Initially, the High Court in Marin County, California granted Dennis's request to allow New Jersey to decide the issue of personal jurisdiction and submit a fundamental issue in jurisdictional legal matters to California. Then, with the movement to reconsider, quoting Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), the High Court reverses and refuses Dennis' request to cancel the service. Dennis then petitioned a mandate from the California Court of Appeals for the First District of Appeals, which refused help, as did the California Supreme Court. Dennis then requested a review of the United States Supreme Court, which provided a certiorari to deal with the continued validity of the jurisdiction while keeping in mind the latest developments in the law of private jurisdiction.
About 16 months after the Court's decision, the California High Court granted a divorce suit in October 1992.
​​â € <â €
At common law, recognized by the Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), a civil action began by serving the proceedings on the defendant in the jurisdiction of the forum. The service to the defendant in the forum state creates the jurisdiction over the defendant irrespective of whether the defendant is a resident of the country or just visiting, and regardless of whether the issue of the lawsuit has anything to do with the activities of the defendant in the country.
Furthermore, at International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1946) and Shaffer v. Heitner (1977), the Supreme Court declared that the Clause of the Process Because it requires that the exercise of the state of private jurisdiction over the accused must be in accordance with "the traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice," at least when the defendant is not served by the process in the forum state.
The problem at Burnham is whether, in light of International Shoe and Shaffer , the service to non-residents visiting the state remains constitutionally sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-residents.
Maps Burnham v. Superior Court of California
Court Decision
The Court unanimously agrees that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dennis Burnham under "temporary jurisdiction" through process services is appropriate. However, the Judges disagreed with the reasons for the outcome, resulting in four separate opinions.
Just plurality opinion of Justice Scalia
Judge Scalia conveyed the main opinion in this case, joined the Justice Rehnquist, Justice Kennedy, and partly by Justice White. Justice Scalia begins by defining the question posed as "whether the Fourth Amendment Process Clause rejects the California court's jurisdiction over a non-resident, who is privately served by temporary temporary proceedings in that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the State."
Judge Scalia took a historical approach to answering this question. In the view of Scalia Justice, underpinned by quotations from various cases, "[a] mong principle of the most established personal jurisdiction in the American tradition is that the courts of a State have jurisdiction over non-residents physically present in the State." At common law, the service of proceedings to defendants within the forum state is a prerequisite for exercising the jurisdiction over the defendant in that country. In cases like International Shoe Co. v. Washington and Shaffer v. Heitner , the Court has accepted that a non-resident assigned outside the country can still be subject to jurisdiction. , but only if the defendant has a certain "minimum contact with it in such a way that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'the traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice.'" However, these cases do not support the reverse argument that the old practice of obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant by serving the process in the forum may now violate the legal process. "[A] the doctrine of personal jurisdiction that dates back to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and is still generally observed undoubtedly meets [e] the standard" of the legal process.
Brennan Judge Opinion
Judge Brennan, in an opinion that joins Justices Marshall, Blackmun and O'Connor, agrees that California can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over Dennis Burnham because he has been served with the process when visiting the country. However, Justice Brennan rejected Justice Scalia's lawsuit that a long history of allowing temporary jurisdiction is sufficient to settle the case. According to Justice Brennan, the Court's decision in Shaffer v. Heitner requires that all methods of obtaining jurisdiction be evaluated in accordance with the contemporary understanding of the legal process.
Justice Brennan acknowledges that although not dispositive, the historical genealogical jurisdiction is temporarily relevant in evaluating its constitutionality, as it provides potential defendants with the notice that visiting the country may cause them to be subject to jurisdiction in the lawsuit in that country. While voluntarily present in a country, an individual exploits the benefits provided by that country. Moreover, the development of modern communication and transportation makes it much lighter than ever for non-residents to defend themselves in other jurisdictions. Procedural tools such as the non conveniens forum doctrine are available in cases where litigation in forums will be really burdensome. Judge Brennan concluded that "[f] or for these reasons, as a rule of conduct of personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis of his voluntary presence on the forum will meet the requirements of the legal process."
Justice White Opinion
In a concluded partial and agreeable opinion in the verdict, White Justice states that "[t] he commands to allow the jurisdiction to be gained on nonresidents by personal service in the forum state, without more, has and has been widely accepted throughout this country which I am unlikely drop it, either on his face or as applied in this case, arguing that it denies the legal process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. "In Justice White's view, while the Supreme Court has the authority to drop even traditionally accepted procedures that do not provide the process law, there is no basis for doing so in this case. Nothing indicates that permitting process services within a country to provide the basis for jurisdiction "is highly arbitrary and lacking in common sense in many cases so there must be a Breach of Process Because in every case." To avoid endless litigation, Justice White concludes that the challenge to the fairness of service-based jurisdictions in individual cases does not need to be entertained, "[a] at least... where attendance in forum states is intentional, which is almost always a fact."
Judge Opinion Stevens
In a separate opinion corresponding to the verdict, Judge Stevens stated that he refused to join the opinion of Judge Scalia or Judge Brennan because he was "concerned about their [unnecessarily] wide reach." Judge Stevens stated that the historical evidence cited by Judge Scalia, judgment of justice was discussed by Judge Brennan, and public opinion about Judge White's approval, "all join to show that this is indeed a very easy case." In the footnotes, Judge Stevens briefly stated that "[p] may be a maxim about hard cases that make bad laws have to be revised to cover up easy cases."
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 495
- List of US Supreme Court cases
- List of US Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by Rehnuis Court
External links
- Caption text
- Link to case summary
- Verbal arguments in Oyez Project
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments