| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Burnham v. Superior Court of California ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
''Burnham v. Superior Court of California'', , 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 was sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed, and there was no majority opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote an opinion also joined by three other Justices. Justices Byron R. White and John Paul Stevens wrote separate opinions.
==Procedural and factual history==
Dennis Burnham and Frances Cecilia (Perelman) Burnham, a married couple residing in New Jersey, decided to divorce. Francie moved to California on July 14, 1987 with the couple's two children. Thereafter she persuaded Dennis to delay filing the divorce action in New Jersey until 18 months of separation would qualify for a "no fault" divorce. Then, several months later in early 1988 and prior to the 6-month residency requirement in California, Francie filed an action for divorce in California Superior Court. Upon learning of this action, Dennis attempted to promptly file and serve the New Jersey action instead of waiting 12 more months. Dennis was served with the summons when he travelled to California to handle an unrelated business matter and visit his children; service was made on a Sunday in the children's home. The following day, Francie was served with the New Jersey summons. Courts later held that the California action was "first in time."
Dennis filed a "special appearance" in the California court and moved to quash the service of process. He argued that he was a non-resident of California and had no connection with California sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, the Superior Court in Marin County, California granted Dennis's request to allow New Jersey to decide the personal in personam jurisdiction issues and submit the subject matter in rem jurisdiction issues to California. Then, on a Motion to Reconsider citing ''Pennoyer v. Neff'' (1877), the Superior Court reversed and denied Dennis's request to quash service. Dennis then sought a writ of mandamus from California Court of Appeal, which also denied relief, as did the California Supreme Court. Dennis then sought review from the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari〔493 U.S. 807〕 to address the continued validity of transient jurisdiction in light of recent developments in the law of personal jurisdiction.〔"Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin", Oyez Project.() (accessed ~~~~~).〕
Approximately 16 months after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, the California Superior Court granted the divorce in October 1992.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Burnham v. Superior Court of California」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|