In the case of Burnham v. Superior Court, what principle allows a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident?

The principle that allows a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident in the case of Burnham v. Superior Court is grounded in the concept of physical presence and personal service. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a non-resident individual can be subject to the jurisdiction of a state if they are physically present within that state and served with process there. The rationale is that personal service on an individual while they are physically present in the forum state satisfies traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

This concept is rooted in the historical practice of common law, where jurisdiction was often tied to the physical location of the individual. Thus, if a non-resident is transiently present in a state, they can be subjected to the jurisdiction of that state simply by being there and being served. This principle emphasizes the importance of being physically present in the jurisdiction and receiving notice of the legal action, which is foundational to the notion of personal jurisdiction.

In contrast, the other principles, such as consent to jurisdiction or minimum contacts, focus more on the relationship between the defendant and the forum, rather than the clear and straightforward criterion of being physically present. The effects test, meanwhile, typically pertains to cases involving remote conduct that has effects