1. Lecture 23 Dec. 3, 2018

2. Hughes v Fetter (US 1951)

3. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947) state courts may not discriminate against federal causes of action

4. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George (US 1914)

5. There are many cases where right and remedy are so united that the right cannot be enforced except in the manner and before the tribunal designated by the act. For the rule is well settled that "where the provision for the liability is coupled with a provision for the special remedy, that remedy, that alone, must be employed." But that rule has no application to a case arising under the Alabama Code relating to suits for injuries caused by defective machinery. [I]t is … evident that the place of bringing the suit is not part of the cause of action -- the right and the remedy are not so inseparably united as to make the right dependent upon its being enforced in a particular tribunal. The cause of action is transitory, and, like any other transitory action, can be enforced "in any court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Alabama "

6. Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965)
Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga corporation
Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp statute even though Ga statute said action had to be brought before Ga Comp board
The rule of Tennessee Coal “has been eroded by the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers and Pacific Insurance.”

7. Privileges & Immunities Clause

8. Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination
State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity)
not a right to an elk hunting license…
Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination
and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end

9. Piper NH cannot make NH residence a requirement for membership in the NH bar - important right withheld? - substantial reasons for withholding? - does withholding bear a substantial relationship to achieving end?

10. CT has guest statute, New York does not
NY guest and host get into accident in CT
Guest sues host in CT court, which – using interest analysis – does not apply guest statute
Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

11. - What if NY guest sues CT host in CT state ct for accident in CT - ct resolves true conflict by applying NY law - any P&I violation? - ct resolves true conflict by applying CT guest statute - any P&I violation?

12. What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT state ct
CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT)
Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

13. Preclusion Res Judicata

14. P sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident D wins P sues again in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident P sues D in Cal. state ct for personal damages in connection with same accident

15. P sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident P wins, gets judgment for $100 P brings an action in Cal. state ct to collect the judgment P sues D in Cal. state ct for personal damages in connection with same accident

16. P sues D1 in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident D1 wins, P is determined to be contributorily negligent P sues D2 in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident

17. P1 sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident P1 wins, D is determined to be negligent P2 sues D in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident

18. interjurisdictional preclusion full faith and credit

19. Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)

20. The main argument urged by the defendant to sustain the judgment below is addressed to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws of Mississippi make dealing in futures a misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that sort, made without intent to deliver the commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be enforced by any court." The defendant contends that this language deprives the Mississippi courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. There, the New York statutes refused to provide a court into which a foreign corporation could come, except upon causes of action arising within the state, etc., and it was held that the State of New York was under no constitutional obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme court against its will. One question is whether that decision is in point.

21. The case quoted concerned a statute plainly dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the New York court. The statute now before us seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision. The Mississippi court in which this action was brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and would have to decide upon the validity of the bar if the suit upon the award or upon the original cause of action had been brought there. The words "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying that an action shall not be brought to enforce such contracts.

22. assume the Mississippi statute had been jurisdictional
would that have made a difference?
can the public policy exception apply to a suit on a judgment?

23. Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid
Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid. to out of state corporate Ps for suits on judgments rendered out of state between out of state corp’s where the original cause of action arose out of state

24. upshot of Fauntleroy: so no PPE against respecting suits on sister state judgments (setting aside refusal of jurisdiction)

25. did the decision of the MO ct violate the Constitution?

26. “Of course, a want of jurisdiction over either the person or the subject matter might be shown. But, as the jurisdiction of the Missouri court is not open to dispute, the judgment cannot be impeached in Mississippi even if it went upon a misapprehension of the Mississippi law.”

27. could jurisdiction in Missouri have been challenged in Mississippi even if there had been no jurisdiction?

28. dissent – should allow refusal of jurisdiction for suits on judgments whose underlying causes of action are violative of forum’s public policy

29. does it make sense to have broad allowance for public policy in choice of law and to forbid it for recognition of judgments?

30. Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)

31. First. It was contended below in the trial court, and there held, that the provision of the decree of the Georgia court directing the payment to R. D. Blowers, trustee, of $1,750 to be “expended by him in his discretion for the benefit of the minor child, including her education, support, maintenance, medical attention and other necessary items of expenditure,” was not intended to relieve the father from all further liability to support Sadie. This contention appears to have been abandoned.

32. Third. It is contended that the Georgia decree is not binding upon Sadie, because she was not a formal party to the suit, was not served with process, and no guardian ad litem was appointed for her therein. In Georgia, as elsewhere, a property right of a minor can ordinarily be affected by legal proceedings only if these requirements are complied with.

33. can a child support judgment ever really be final?

34. is SC treating the Ga judgment any worse than its own judgments?

35. Stone, J., dissenting
“For present purposes, we may take it that the Georgia decree, as the statutes and decisions of the state declare, is unalterable, and, as pronounced, is effective to govern the rights of the parties in Georgia. But there is nothing the decree itself or in the history of the proceedings which led to it to suggest that it was rendered with any purpose or intent to regulate or control the relationship of parent and child, or the duties which flow from it, in places outside the State of Georgia where they might later come to reside.”

36. “It would be going further than this Court has been willing to go in any decision to say that the power of a state to pass judgment upon the sanity of its own citizen could be foreclosed by an earlier judgment of the court of some other state dealing with the same subject matter.”

37. “Parties who have in one state litigated the proper construction of a will disposing of realty are not, by the judgment there, concluded in another state where the testator's realty is located. Nor will a divorce decree seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to realty be conclusive with respect to land outside the state. The interest of a state in controlling all the legal incidents of real property located within its boundaries is deemed so complete and so vital to the exercise of its sovereign powers of government within its own territory as to exclude any control over them by the statutes or judgments of other states.”

38. “More than once, this Court has approved the doctrine that a state need give no effect to judgments for conviction of crime or for penalties procured in a sister state.”

39. Georgia has mutuality requirement for issue preclusion
Alabama does not
P sues D in Georgia state court
D is found negligent
P2 sues D in Alabama state court concerning same accident
may P2 issue preclude D from relitigating his negligence?

40. Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

41. but assume that the property was really in MO that means the Neb ct had not jurisdiction how can its decision that it has jurisdiction be binding?

42. personal jurisdiction

43. subject matter jurisdiction

44. - P sues D in federal court - there is no federal SMJ but no one notices - the time for appeal is over - P then sues D in state court on the federal judgment - can D collaterally attack the judgment for lack of SMJ?

45. Kalb v Feuerstein (US 1940)
State ct took jurisd over a foreclosure proceeding – as a result farmer lost farm
State judgment not given FF&C because at the time a bankruptcy action was pending, which deprived state ct of jurisd
State court was unaware of bankruptcy action
as dictum SCt said that even if state ct found that it had jurisd over an action despite bankruptcy, the judgment could be ignored

46. judgment in Calif. state ct FF&C ignored, resulting in an incompatible judgment in Nevada state ct Which judgment should an Oregon state ct respect?