Legal Concepts Analysis
Wed. Apr. 12
Privileges & Immunities Clause
•
State cannot withhold from non-residents something important
(something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity)
•
Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination
•
and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial
relationship to achieving the end
•
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?
- 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?
•
What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT state ct
•
CT court, using Kramer’s approach, does not apply guest
statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT)
but does apply CT negligence law
•
Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a
protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?
Preclusion
Res Judicata
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
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
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
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
Fauntleroy v Lum
(US 1908)
•
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.
•
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.
•
Assume the Mississippi statute had been jurisdictional
•
Would that have made a difference?
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
“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.”
Does it make sense to have broad allowance
for public policy in choice of law and to forbid
it for recognition of judgments?
Yarborough v Yarborough
(US 1933)
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.
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.
can a child support judgment ever really be
final?
Is SC treating the Ga judgment any worse than
its own judgments?
•
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.”
•
“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.”
•
“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.”
•
“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.”
•
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?
Durfee v Duke
(US 1963)
personal jurisdiction
subject matter jurisdiction
- 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?
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
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?
Discussing legal principles such as the Privileges & Immunities Clause, Preclusion Res Judicata, and scenarios regarding lawsuits across different states. Examining the application of laws in various situations and potential violations of rights.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity) Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end
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?
- 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?
What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT state ct CT court, using Kramer s approach, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT) but does apply CT negligence law Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?
Preclusion Res Judicata
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
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
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
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
Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)
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.
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.
Assume the Mississippi statute had been jurisdictional Would that have made a difference?
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
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.
Does it make sense to have broad allowance for public policy in choice of law and to forbid it for recognition of judgments?
Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)
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.
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.
Is SC treating the Ga judgment any worse than its own judgments?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Durfee v Duke (US 1963)
- 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?
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
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?
