Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A non-resident husband was served with divorce papers while briefly visiting his children in California. The Supreme Court upheld the state’s personal jurisdiction, finding that service of process on a person physically present in a state satisfies due process, regardless of their contacts.
Legal Significance: This case affirmed the constitutionality of “transient” or “tag” jurisdiction. It established that a defendant’s physical presence alone is a sufficient basis for general personal jurisdiction, existing independently of the “minimum contacts” analysis required for absent defendants under International Shoe.
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Dennis Burnham, a New Jersey resident, separated from his wife, who then moved to California with their two children. While the couple had initially agreed to pursue a divorce based on “irreconcilable differences,” Mr. Burnham filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of “desertion” but did not serve his wife. Subsequently, Mrs. Burnham filed for divorce in California. During a short trip to California for business and to visit his children, Mr. Burnham was personally served with a California court summons and his wife’s divorce petition. Mr. Burnham’s only connections to California were brief, intermittent visits. The divorce action was unrelated to his activities within the state. He made a special appearance in California Superior Court to quash the service of process, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He contended that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, jurisdiction was improper because he lacked the “minimum contacts” with California as required by the standard set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The California courts denied his motion, asserting that his physical presence in the state at the time of service was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who was personally served with process while temporarily and voluntarily present in the forum state for a cause of action unrelated to his activities there?
No. The Due Process Clause does not prohibit a state from exercising Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who was personally served with process while temporarily and voluntarily present in the forum state for a cause of action unrelated to his activities there?
Conclusion
The Court's decision unequivocally upholds the constitutionality of "tag" jurisdiction based on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com
Legal Rule
Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteu
Legal Analysis
The Court's judgment was unanimous, but its reasoning was fractured. Justice Scalia's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Personal service on a defendant who is voluntarily and physically present