| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Couple is married in NJ. They agree to divorce based on "irreconcilable differences." She moves to CA, he files in NJ alleging "desertion." While he is in CA on business and visiting the kids, he's served there. |
| Posture: | CA courts refuse to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. |
| Issue: | If you're temporarily in a state, and get served, does that count? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | Physical presence alone is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system. |
| Reasoning: | Shaffer didn't say ALL jurisdiction was subject to
minimum contacts analysis-- it was just saying that personal
jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction were the
sae and should be treated alike.
State courts have jurisdiction over people who are physically present. |
| Dicta: | Brennan, dissenting: I though Shaffer as saying that all rules about jurisdiction-- even ancient ones-- had to satisfy contemporary notions about due process. |