Burnham v. Superior Court of California
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Burnham_v._Superior_Court_of_California an entity of type: Thing
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
rdf:langString
Dennis Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin
xsd:integer
20033977
xsd:integer
1056395759
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Writ of certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
xsd:integer
604
xsd:integer
495
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-28
xsd:integer
1990
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-29
xsd:integer
1990
rdf:langString
Dennis Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin
rdf:langString
Personal jurisdiction can be exercised over a nonresident who was personally served with process while temporarily in that State, in a suit unrelated to his activities in the State.
rdf:langString
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
rdf:langString
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Kennedy; White
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
12397