Citation network
Burnham Vs. Superior Court
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Burnham v. SuperiorSearch
-
Court - 495 U.S. 604 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Burnham v. SuperiorSearch
-
Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) Burnham v. SuperiorSearch
-
followed by American courts in marking out the territorial limits of each State's authority. See Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
U. S. 714 , 95 U. S. 722 . The classic expression of that criterion appeared in International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 628 -640. (a) Reliance solely on historical precedent is foreclosed by International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 310 , 326 U. S. 316 , and Shaffer v. HeitnerSearch
-
that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void traces back to the English Year Books, see Bowser v. CollinsSearch
-
judgments that violated this common law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. See, e.g., Grumon v. RaymondSearch
-
Picquet v. SwanSearch
-
Dunn v. DunnSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Evans v. InstineSearch
-
Steel v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 336 , 51 U. S. 350 (1850). In Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
courts in marking out the territorial limits of each State's authority. That criterion was first announced in Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
U. S. 722 . In what has become the classic expression of the criterion, we said in International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
Id. at 326 U. S. 316 , quoting Milliken v. MeyerSearch
-
U. S. 457 , 311 U. S. 463 (1940). See also Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. CompagnieSearch
-
Colombia v. HallSearch
-
to enter Page 495 U. S. 611 judgment against him, no matter how fleeting his visit. See, e.g., Potter v. AllinSearch
-
Barrell v. BenjaminSearch
-
the country, to be maintained against seemingly nonresident defendants who were present in England. See, e.g., Mostyn v. FabrigasSearch
-
Cartwright v. PettusSearch
-
Murphy v. J.SSearch
-
Winter & Co., 18 Ga. 690, 691-692 (1855). See also, e.g., Peabody v. HamiltonSearch
-
Alley v. CaspariSearch
-
was only briefly in the State or whether the cause of action was related to his activities there. See, e.g., Vinal v. CoreSearch
-
Roberts v. DunsmuirSearch
-
De Poret v. GusmanSearch
-
Smith v. GibsonSearch
-
Savin v. BondSearch
-
Hart v. GrangerSearch
-
Mussina v. BeldenSearch
-
Darrah v. WatsonSearch
-
Baisley v. BaisleySearch
-
Bowman v. FlintSearch
-
Tex.Civ.App. 28, 29, 82 S.W. 1049, 1050 (1904). See also Reed v. HollisterSearch
-
Hagen v. VineySearch
-
Vaughn Page 495 U. S. 613 v. LoveSearch
-
L.Rev. 909, 937-938 (1960). Opinions from the courts of other States announced the rule in dictum. See, e.g., Reed v. BrowningSearch
-
Nathanson v. SpitzSearch
-
McLeod v. ConnecticutSearch
-
New Orleans J & G.N.R. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
Wagner v. HallackSearch
-
Downer v. ShawSearch
-
Moore v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial