Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933). Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933). Durfee v Duke (US 1963)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)

2 Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

3 Clarke v. Clarke (US 1900)

4 Fall v Eastin (US 1909)

5 Nancy B. Clarke, one of the parties to the suit in South Carolina, and whom the Connecticut court has held inherited, to the exclusion of the father, under the laws of Connecticut, the whole of the real estate belonging to her sister, was a minor. She was therefore incompetent, in the proceedings in South Carolina, to stand in judgment for the purpose of depriving herself of the rights which belonged to her under the law of Connecticut as to the real estate within that state… It cannot be doubted that the courts of a state where real estate is situated have the exclusive right to appoint a guardian of a nonresident minor, and vest in such guardian the exclusive control and management of land belonging to said minor, situated within the state.

6 Baker v Gen Motors (US 1998)

7 Assume that in Michigan state court General Motors had brought a declaratory judgment action against the Bakers to determine whether Ewell could testify in any suit they might bring. What result?

8 African-American applicants to a fire dept sue the department The court enters a decree for an affirmative action program in hiring Subsequently white applicants to the fire department sue the department challenging the program Are they precluded?

9 Anglo-Am Provision v Davis (US 1903) NY ct allowed to refuse suit on foreign judgment between 2 foreign corps when judgment arose from cause of action arising out of state

10 Kenney v Supreme Lodge (US 1920) Ill ct refused jurisdiction for suit on Alabama wrongful death judgment against an Illinoisan basis was statute forbidding actions for death outside state

11 “Full faith and credit, however, does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the even- handed control of forum law.”

12 “Orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority.”

13 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein (US 1996)

14 28 U.S.C. § 1738 The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

15 P sues D in state ct for state law fraud concerning securities J for P (not settlement) P then sues D in fed ct for fed securities law violations Assume instead that P loses in state ct (no misrepresentation by D found) P sues D in fed ct Issue preclusion?

16 Marrese If, under state law, federal action would not be precluded by state judgment – then the federal court may not preclude the action If, under state law, federal action would be precluded – then the federal court must preclude the action – unless the federal statute giving the federal courts exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction for the federal action impliedly repealed federal courts' obligations under section 1738 to give full faith and credit to state court judgments.

Download ppt "Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933). Durfee v Duke (US 1963)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google