Hampton v. M'connel, 3 Wheat. 234 (1818). · Go Syfert
Search
Hampton v. M'connel, 3 Wheat. 234 (1818). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 · 3 courts · …the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the united states, which it had in the state where it was pronounced. at p. 235 ✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1980 · …the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court in the united states, which it had in the state where it was pronounced. at p. 235 ✓
314 citation events (65 in the last 25 years) across 79 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dealer Services Corporation v. Albertson (delsuperct, 2024-06-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dealer Services Corporation v. Albertson
Del. Super. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
Guaranty Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704 (1982) (“This Court has consistently recognized that … the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.’”) (quoting Hampton v. McConnel, 16 U.S. 234, 235 (1818)). 40 D.I. 1 ¶ 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Humble v. Arctas Mariah Energy, LLC
W.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Hampton v. McConell, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 (1818) (Marshall, C.J.) (“[T]he judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the State where it was pronounced[.]”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) BancorpSouth Bank v. David J. Johnson, Eugene Gibson, and Cheryl Gibson
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Hampton v. M’Connel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 ; 16 U.S. 234, 235 (1818).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evoy v. Amandio
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2011 · confidence medium
The doctrine of full faith and credit requires that the “judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.” (Hampton v McConnel, 16 US 234, 235 [1818].) Exceptions to the rule of full faith and credit lie where the court rendering the initial decision lacked jurisdiction, be it subject matter or personal, when the initial decision was not final under the laws of the rendering state, or where the foreign state’s findings are subject to fraud or collusion claims.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaibab Industries v. Industrial Commission
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Assuming that Ms. Sinks had sustained a new injury, Lumbermen’s contends that the ALJ erred when he implied that an out-of-state new injury claim would preclude the application of the successive-injury doctrine. 4 ¶ 16 According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, “the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.” Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 270 , 100 S.Ct. 2647 , 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980), quoting Hampton v. McConnel, 16 U.S. 234, 235, 3 (Whea…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) N In Comm Trans Dist v. Chicago S Shore/S Bend RR
Ind. · 1998 · confidence medium
Ass’n , 455 U.S. 691, 704 , 102 S.Ct. 1357 , 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Hampton v. McConnel , 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 234, 235 , 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818) (Marshall, C.J.)); accord Durfee v. Duke , 375 U.S. 106, 109 , 84 S.Ct. 242 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963). (footnote: 5) Nonetheless, “before a court is bound by the judgment rendered in another State, it may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court’s decree.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District v. Chicago Southshore & South Bend Railroad
Ind. · 1997 · confidence medium
Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 704 , 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1365 , 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Hampton v. McConnel, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 234, 235 , 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818) (Marshall, C.J.)); accord Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 109 , 84 S.Ct. 242, 244 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963). 5 Nonetheless, “before a court is bound by the judgment rendered in another State, it may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court’s decree.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. Clark
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The rule is that “the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state in which it was pronounced.” Hampton v. M’Connel, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 234, 235 , 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818)(Marshall, C.J.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roark v. Sweigart
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
See also, Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 236 , 28 S.Ct. 641 , 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908); Hampton v. M’Connel, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Montague v. Wilder
N.C. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Boyles v. Boyles, 308 N.C. 488, 490 , 302 S.E. 2d 790, 792 (1983), quoting Hampton v. M’Connel, 3 (Wheat.) 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Shepard
N.H. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co. v. North Carolina Life, 455 U.S. 691, 704 (1982) (quoting Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 (1818)); see Ely v. DeRosier, 123 N.H. 249, 251 , 459 A.2d 280, 282 (1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyles v. Boyles (2×)
N.C. · 1983 · confidence medium
Ass’n [hereinafter cited as Underwriters], 455 U.S. 691, 704 , 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1365 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 558, 570 (1982), quoting Hampton v. M’Connel, 3 (Wheat.) 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378, 379 (1818).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n (2×)
SCOTUS · 1982 · confidence medium
This Court has consistently recognized that, in order to fulfill this constitutional mandate, "the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced." Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 (1818) (Marshall, C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1980 · confidence medium
It has long been the law that "the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced." Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 (Marshall, C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Morris
Cal. Ct. App. · 1943 · confidence medium
By the Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, Congress has provided that judgments 'shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.' Chief Justice Marshall stated in Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 [ 4 L.Ed. 378 ], that 'the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such state, an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Security FirstNational Bank of Los Angeles v. Riley
Cal. Ct. App. · 1943 · confidence medium
By the Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, Congress has provided that judgments ‘shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.’ Chief Justice Marshall stated in Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235 [ 4 L.Ed. 378 ], that ‘the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such sta…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roche v. McDonald
SCOTUS · 1928 · confidence medium
Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481, 484 ; Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235; D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 175 ; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108, 123 ; Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640, 643 ; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 57 ; Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243, 259 .
examined Cited "see" Middlebrooks v. Sacor Fin., Inc. (3×)
N.D. Ga. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. , 448 U.S. 261 , 270, 100 S.Ct. 2647 , 2655, 65 L.Ed. 2d 757 (1980) (quoting Hampton v. McConnel , 16 U.S. 234 , 235, 3 Wheat. 234 , 4 L.Ed. 378 (1818) ).
examined Cited "see" In re Chaitan (3×)
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 270 , 100 S.Ct. 2647 , 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980); see generally Hampton v. McConnel, 16 U.S. 234 , 3 Wheat. 234 , 4 L.Ed. 378 (1818).
examined Cited "see" City of Philadelphia v. Austin (4×)
N.J. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hampton v. M'Connel, 16 U.S. 234 (3 Wheat.), 4 L.Ed. 378 (1818).
cited Cited "see" Gleason v. Dodd
Mass. · 1842 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234 , and the reporter’s note.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." XORBOX, ETC. v. Naturita Supply Co., Inc.
N.M. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
IV, § 1; Barker v. Barker, 94 N.M. 162 , 608 P.2d 138 (1980); see also, Hampton v. McConnell, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 233, 234, 4 L.Ed. 378 (1818) (full faith and credit given on a money judgment); Mitchell v. Pincock. 99 Idahoe 56, 577 P.2d 343 (1978) (full faith and credit includes res judicata).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thompson v. Whitman
unknown court · 1874 · signal: see also · confidence low
To the same effect see Story on the Constitution, chap, xxix; 1 Greenloaf on Evidence, § 540. * 7 Cranch, 484 . † Sec. 1313. ‡ Sec. 609. * Vol. 1, p. 281; see also vol. 2, 95, note, and cases cited. † 3 Wheaton, 234 . ‡ 13 Peters, 312 . * 10 Howard, 348 . † Page 371. ‡ 6 Wendell, 453 . § 4 Connecticut, 380. || 1 Dutcher, 225. ¶ 11 Howard, 165 . * Page 176. * 11 Howard, 437 . ‡ 15 Johnson, 141 . † 14 Howard, 334 . § 5 Wendell, 156 . * 5 Wallace, 290. † Page 305. ‡ 1 Peters, 328, 340 . § 6 Peters, 691 . || 10 Id. 475. ¶ 13 Id. 511. ** 2 Howard, 59 , 60. †† 3 Id. 762…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hampton
v.
M'Connel
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1818.
3 Wheat. 234
1818 U.S. LEXIS 361
Mr. Hopkinson, for the plaintiff in error,, Mr. Law, for the defendant in error,
Ma.
Cited by 222 opinions  |  Published
Mr,. Chief Justice Ma»shai,l

delivered the opinion of the court. This is precisely the same case as that of Mills v. Duryee. The court cannot distinguish the two cases. The doctrine there held was that the judgment of. a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court • of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to.a suit thereon in such state, and none others, could be plea-ed in any either court in the United States.

Judgment affirmed. [c]

c

In Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481. the following points were adjudged: 1st That the act of 1790, ch. 38, prescribing the mode in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, in each state, shall be so authenticated as to take effect rn every other state, declaring that the record of a judgment duly authenticated shall have such faith and[*236] credit as it has in' the state court from whence it was taken; if in such court it has the. effect of record evidence, it must have the same effect in every other court within the United States. 2d. That in every case arising ynder the act, the only inquiry is,what is. the effect of the judgment in t.he state where it was rendered. 3d. That whatever might be the effect of a plea of nil deb'et to an action on a state judgment, after verdict, it could not be sustained on demurrer. 4th. That on such a plea the original record need sot be produced for inspection, but thát an exemplification thereof is sufficient. 5th. That the act applies to the courts of the-district of Colombia, and to every -other court within the United States.

In the argument of Bordon v Fitch, 15. Johns. Rep, 121. in the supreme court 'of Nevr York, it sce.ms to have been supposed that this court had decided in Mills v. Duryee, that nul tiel record was the only proper plea to.an action upon a state judgment. But it is. conceived that as to the pleadings, it only decided that nil debet tfas not a proper plea; and that the court would hold that any plea (as well as nul tiel record) that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would, be good. However this may be,- it "may safely be affirmed, that the question is still open in this court whether a special plea of fraud might not be pleaded, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained; for these might, in' some cases, be pleaded in the state court to avoid the judgment.