Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Burnham v. Super. Ct., 495 U.S. 604 (1990)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/077-burnham-v-superior-court

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep495/usrep495604/usrep495604.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Dennis and Francie Burnham, married in West Virginia, lived in New Jersey until they separated. Francie moved to California with the children and filed for divorce there. When Dennis made a short business trip to Southern California and visited the children, he was handed a California court summons and a copy of the divorce petition.

The Court unanimously upheld California's jurisdiction over him, but without a majority rationale. Justice Scalia, for four justices, said jurisdiction based on physical presence, called tag jurisdiction, is valid because it was a firmly established, continuing tradition when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and needs no minimum-contacts analysis. Justice Brennan, also for four, said it is valid because a visitor who avails himself of the state's benefits has enough contacts to make jurisdiction fair.

Justice White concurred in part, and Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment alone. The clash between history and fairness is the whole case.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) [as printed: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] episode

- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) [as printed: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] episode

- Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203 (1888) at 204 [as printed: Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203, 204, 16 P. 782 (1888); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154 (1814) at 154-155 (suit brought against former resident of forum State based on contract entered into there) [as printed: Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154, 154-155 (1814) (suit brought against former resident of forum State based on contract entered into there); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228 (1881) at 233 (both defendants residents of forum State) [as printed: Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228, 233 (1881) (both defendants residents of forum State); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Smith v. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284 (1887) at 285 [as printed: Smith v. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284, 285, 3 So. 321 (1887); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544 (1893) at 550 (court ruled for plaintiff on grounds of estoppel because defendant had failed to raise timely objection to jurisdiction in a prior suit) [as printed: Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544, 550, 21 S. W. 29, 30 (1893) (court ruled for plaintiff on grounds of estoppel because defendant had failed to raise timely objection to jurisdiction in a prior suit); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

(+21 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 204 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/077-burnham-v-superior-court