Kulko v. Superior Court

So far, after International Shoe, we have read two contracts and two products liability cases.  All of these cases, including International Shoe, concerned the implications of business transactions.  The next case explores how the overall doctrine of "minimum contacts" applies in cases involving family law. As noted previously, it is not clear how well doctrines developed in the commercial context fit to fact patterns featuring actors motivated by non-commercial concerns.

Husband and wife, both then New York domiciliaries, were married in 1959 in California during husband's three-day stopover while he was en route to overseas military duty. After the marriage, wife returned to New York, as did husband following his tour of duty and a 24-hour stopover in California. In 1961 and 1962, a son and daughter were born to them in New York, where the family resided together until March, 1972, when husband and wife separated. Wife then moved to California; the children stayed with husband in New York, and a New York court entered an order for child support reflecting the fact that both children resided with husband.

In December, 1973, the daughter, at her request and with her father's consent, joined her mother in California, and remained there during the school year, spending vacations with her father. Wife, without appellant's consent, arranged for the son to join her in California about two years later.

Wife then brought this action against husband in California to modify the child support arrangement. Husband, resisting the claim for increased support, appeared specially, claiming that he lacked sufficient "minimum contacts" to warrant California's assertion of personal jurisdiction over him.

The California Supreme Court, upholding lower court determinations adverse to husband, concluded that, where a nonresident defendant has caused an "effect" in the State by an act or omission outside the State, personal jurisdiction over the defendant arising from that effect may be exercised whenever "reasonable," and that such exercise was "reasonable" here because appellant had "purposely availed himself of the benefits and protections of California" by sending the daughter to live with her mother there, and that it was "fair and reasonable" for the defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction for the support of both children.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari.