Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) p89.

in rem jurisdiction

• Burnhams were married in West Virginia in 1976.
• In 1977 they moved to New Jersey where there two children were born
• In July 1987 they decided to separate.
• They agreed Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, would take custody of the children.
• Mrs. Burnham brought suit for divorce in California state court in early January 1988.
• In late January petitioner visited southern California on business, after which he went north to visit his children in the San Francisco Bay area, where he was served with a California court summons and a copy of Mrs. Bernham's divorce petition.
• He then returned to New Jersey.

Later that year petitioner made a special appearance in the California Superior Court, moving to quash the service of process on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because his only contacts with California were a few short visits to the State for the purposes of conducting business and visiting his children. Superior court denied the motion and the California Court of Appeal denied mandamus relief.

Does due process require a similar connection (as in Pennoyer and International Shoe) between the litigation and the defendant's contacts with the state in cases where the defendant is physically present in the state at the time process is served upon him? Can California have jurisdiction over Mr. Burnham based simply on his presence in the state during a few short visits?

Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard.

Because the due process clause does not prohibit the California courts from exercising jurisdiction over petitioner based on the fact of in-state service of process, California has jurisdiction over Mr. Burnham.

Never been a case in American history that held or even suggested that in state personal service on an individual was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. No state has abandoned in state service as a basis of jurisdiction.

Shaffer involved jurisdiction over an absent defendant. The logic of Shaffer's holding - which places all suits against absent nonresidents on the same constitutional footing, regardless of whether a separate Latin label is attached to one particular bases of contact - does not compel the conclusion that physically present defendants must be treated identically to absent ones.

Scalia's opinion in this case was not a majority opinion. So the main question is still unanswered. The court said there is enough to attain jurisdiction, but not exactly clear why exactly.