495 U.S. 604, 618, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990)
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home.1
In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey.2
In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.3
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities there?4
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who is personally served with process while physically present in the state. This is true even if the suit is unrelated to the defendant's activities there. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process. It is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.5
No. Dennis Burnham was served with process while voluntarily present in California during his visit to discuss the children and the separation.6 This physical presence at the time of service satisfies the traditional basis for jurisdiction that has been upheld since Pennoyer v. Neff and was not repudiated by International Shoe Co. v. Washington or Shaffer v. Heitner.7 The California Superior Court denied the motion to quash service and the Court of Appeal affirmed, correctly applying the transient jurisdiction rule that comports with due process.8
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit the California courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over Dennis Burnham based on in-state service of process.9
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White joined Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C of JUSTICE SCALIA's opinion and concurred in the judgment of affirmance.10 The rule allowing jurisdiction to be obtained over a nonresident by personal service in the forum State, without more, has been and is so widely accepted throughout this country that he could not possibly strike it down, either on its face or as applied in this case, on the ground that it denies due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.11
Although the Court has the authority under the Amendment to examine even traditionally accepted procedures and declare them invalid, there has been no showing here or elsewhere that as a general proposition the rule is so arbitrary and lacking in common sense in so many instances that it should be held violative of due process in every case.12 Furthermore, until such a showing is made, which would be difficult indeed, claims in individual cases that the rule would operate unfairly as applied to the particular nonresident involved need not be entertained. At least this would be the case where presence in the forum State is intentional, which would almost always be the fact.13
Joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, And O'connor
Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the Due Process Clause generally permits a state court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant served with process while voluntarily present in the forum State.14 He would not rest the decision solely on the common law rule of transient jurisdiction.15
Instead, he would hold that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice under all the circumstances because the petitioner had notice and sufficient contacts with the state.16
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. He explained that he did not join the Court's opinion in Shaffer v. Heitner because he was concerned by its unnecessarily broad reach.17 The same concern prevented him from joining either JUSTICE SCALIA's or JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion in this case.18
For him, it is sufficient to note that the historical evidence and consensus identified by JUSTICE SCALIA, the considerations of fairness identified by JUSTICE BRENNAN, and the common sense displayed by JUSTICE WHITE, all combine to demonstrate that this is, indeed, a very easy case. Accordingly, he agreed that the judgment should be affirmed.19