Connection lost
Server error
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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