Does anyone know why Burnham reached the Supreme Court? Forum

[Gamecubesupreme]

I kept wondering this in class, but was afraid to ask the professor because it sounds like a stupid question.

But the case seemed to be so elementary, I never understood why the court granted Certiorari.

He was in the state, he was nailed with service of process, that should be it.

Did anyone's prof went into detail with this case?

[UnitarySpace]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

[dakatz]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

Yeah, I remember that. Scalia argued that in-state service is THE traditional notion of justice. But there is disagreement, because Schaffer dictated that there always must be a Shoe Test, even though the conclusion would likely come out the same. Of course it is a simple issue whether or not CA would have PJ over that guy. The reason the case got that far is because there was disagreement over how one approaches this type of problem. Do we use a Pennoyer-like approach in a world of minimum contacts?

[beach_terror]

e. Transient Presence (temp. in the state)
i. Scalia: Service of process is sufficient for in personam w/o MC. Based on historical view of service of process. Service not necessary for IP, but sufficient. Int’l Shoe was only for OOS D’s.
ii. Brennan: Int’l Shoe replaced Pennoyer. Upheld IP because spending a few days in a state = purposeful availment. D availed himself of “significant benefits provided by CA” – very broad
1. Health + safety, free to travel, enjoy fruits of economy, access to courts, there once so burden of returning is low

Basically, Brennan's approach is a shiesty way to satisfy MC so it will almost always be met if you find the D in the forum state. The case makes little logical sense to me, but it's like "hey law students, rack up points". Scalia took "all" to only mean those who were out of state. Also, that aspect of Pennoyer has never been explicitly overruled.

You can blame J. Stevens for not creating a majority (just like in Asahi) - what a doucher.

[dailygrind]

Basically, Brennan's approach is a shiesty way to satisfy MC so it will almost always be met if you find the D in the forum state. The case makes little logical sense to me, but it's like "hey law students, rack up points". Scalia took "all" to only mean those who were out of state. Also, that aspect of Pennoyer has never been explicitly overruled.

right? this would never work if you applied brennan's approach in another context. let's say i've gone to texas for 3 days. i leave, come back home, and someone serves me with process for a tort i committed in georgia, and wants me to appear in texas. because, you know, i spent 3 days there, and there's general jurisdiction. gfy brennan.

[Gamecubesupreme]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

But I thought because Shaffer involved quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over non-resident D who were not served process in the forum, the holding from Shaffer only applies to exercise of jurisdiction without in-state service of process.

[beach_terror]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

But I thought because Shaffer involved quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over non-resident D who were not served process in the forum, the holding from Shaffer only applies to exercise of jurisdiction without in-state service of process.

No. "We therefore conclude that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set for in Int’l Shoe and it's progeny"

Therefore, because of Shaffer, any analysis now needs minimum contacts analysis. Residency, property, transient presence, everything.

[dakatz]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

But I thought because Shaffer involved quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over non-resident D who were not served process in the forum, the holding from Shaffer only applies to exercise of jurisdiction without in-state service of process.

Rule of Shaffer: All issues of PJ should be evaluated according to minimum contacts/Shoe Test

Burnham involved a simple issue that Pennoyer rules would have covered. But that is no longer how we approach such issues, even where Pennoyer approach would be sufficient.

[Cupidity]

Don't think about it just in terms of Shaffer, ever since International Shoe and the "traditional notions of fairplay and substantive justice" bit, no one have ever touched jurisdiction by physical presence. The question was, whether in Shoe, the Court implicitly overruled Pennoyer.

Scalia was like, oh you'd like to think that wouldn't you? Go fuck yourself.

[rayiner]

Basically, Brennan's approach is a shiesty way to satisfy MC so it will almost always be met if you find the D in the forum state. The case makes little logical sense to me, but it's like "hey law students, rack up points". Scalia took "all" to only mean those who were out of state. Also, that aspect of Pennoyer has never been explicitly overruled.

right? this would never work if you applied brennan's approach in another context. let's say i've gone to texas for 3 days. i leave, come back home, and someone serves me with process for a tort i committed in georgia, and wants me to appear in texas. because, you know, i spent 3 days there, and there's general jurisdiction. gfy brennan.

Don't mix up general and specific jurisdiction. Brennan was giving that reciprocity argument that if you avail yourself of the laws of a state, you should be answerable for what you do there. That is specific jurisdiction (since the suit arises out of your limited contacts with the state), not general, which would involve continuous and systematic contacts such that you are essentially a part of the forum state and could be sued for ANYTHING there, even if it didn't arise out of your contacts with the state (i.e. me where I go to law school, or Ford in MI)

The problem with that reasoning as applied to Burnham is that the divorce almost certainly did not arise out of the guy's contact with the state.

There is also a larger issue with Burnham. Tag jurisdiction is a common practice among the states, but its widely disfavored in theory and in practice abroad. European countries may consider assertions of tag jurisdiction grounds for refusing to enforce an American judgement in European courts. After the clear language in Schaffer that all assertions of personal jurisdiction had to meet the minimum contacts test, it was not at all clear that Burnham was going to come out the way that it did. The court wanted to preserve the practice, hence the opinion.

[rayiner]

Dissent argued that, post-shaffer, all exercises of PJ had to undergo minimum contacts analysis.

But I thought because Shaffer involved quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over non-resident D who were not served process in the forum, the holding from Shaffer only applies to exercise of jurisdiction without in-state service of process.

The disagreement was over how broadly to read Schaffer. The language in Schaffer is broad enough to permit a reading suggesting that all assertions of jurisdiction is subject to a minimum contacts analysis. In fact, that's exactly what it says. Burnham basically narrowed the reading of Schaffer a bit to carve out an exception for tag jurisdiction.

Scalia later argued that he thought Schaffer was decided incorrectly, which explains why Burnham is almost completely inconsistent with Schaffer.

[joobacca]

i always thought that the significance of burnham (and i'm sure there are other things) was that part of pennoyer (the capias ad blah blah) still lived

[beach_terror]

i always thought that the significance of burnham (and i'm sure there are other things) was that part of pennoyer (the capias ad blah blah) still lived

It lives in part - according to Scalia and his posse. Brennan and his posse take International Shoe to overrule Pennoyer.

[joobacca]

i always thought that the significance of burnham (and i'm sure there are other things) was that part of pennoyer (the capias ad blah blah) still lived

It lives in part - according to Scalia and his posse. Brennan and his posse take International Shoe to overrule Pennoyer.

totally irrelevant to the thread here, but pennoyer had to be one of the most awful cases to read, right? that language was painful

[BriaTharen]

Might be because of Kulko.One of the reasons the Court didn't make Dad subject to IPJ in California is to preserve familial peace and good dealings between separated parents, in addition to minimum contacts. In Burnham, Dad was visiting his kids in California when he got served.

[09042014]

Because tag jurisdiction is retarded.

[beach_terror]

Because tag jurisdiction is retarded.

But sounds fun.