Ohio Ex Rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930). · Go Syfert
Search
Ohio Ex Rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the united states ....”
514 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 87 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Simmons (ilnb, 2018-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In re Simmons
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the united states ....
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnston v. Johnston
N.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Although the parties may be diverse 11 and the amount in controversy otherwise sufficient, jurisdiction does not lie in light of the strong 12 policies reflected in the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction, which rests on the 13 principle that “[T]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and 14 child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.” Ohio ex rel. 15 Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 , 593–94, (1890)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LISA IPPOLITO VS. TOBIA IPPOLITO (FM-14-0147-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84 (1930) (recognizing that it "has been unquestioned for three- quarters of a century that the Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over divorce"), except – perhaps – to enforce a decree entered by a state or territorial court, see generally Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. Rosenstiel, 490 F.2d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 1973), a circumstance not present when the removal petition was filed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kinchler v. State of Washington
E.D. Wash. · 2020 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler, 10 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1930) (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)).1 11 Based on Petitioner’s prayer for relief, it appears his primary objective in 12 filing this case is for this Court to overturn state court decisions regarding the 13 custody of his daughter.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Maine
1st Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Popovici ___ _____________________ v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1929); Greenwood Trust Co. v. _____ ____________________ Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818, 827 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, _____________ _____ ______ 113 S. Ct. 974 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Spinney
1st Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Here, interpreting the words used by the Sanborn court ("notice of . . . likelihood"), on the one _______ hand, and by the Powell court ("practical certainty"), on the ______ other hand, "in the light of the tacit assumptions upon which it 23 is reasonable to suppose that the language was used," Ohio v. ____ Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1930) (Holmes, J.), it is unsurprising _____ to discover a fork in the road.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Siragusa v. Siragusa
Nev. · 1992 · confidence medium
However, “the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1930) (quoting Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593, 594 (1890)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yuk Shau Mui v. Allen C. Wing A/K/A Wing Quie Chin
6th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1930).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Knight v. Knight (In Re Knight)
W.D.N.C. · 1983 · confidence medium
“United States courts have no jurisdiction over divorce or alimony allowances .. . ‘[t]here is no federal law of domestic relations,’ DeSylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580 [ 76 S.Ct. 974, 979-980 , 100 L.Ed. 1415 ] [ (1956) ], ‘the whole subject of [which] belongs to the laws of the States.’ Popovici v. Agier, 280 U.S. 379, 383 [ 50 S.Ct. 154, 154-155 , 74 L.Ed. 489 ] [ (1930) ]. (quoting Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 [ 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-853 , 34 L.Ed. 1500 ] [ (1890) ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Marriage of Clements
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler (1930) 280 U.S. 379, 383 [ 74 L.Ed. 489, 497-498 , 50 S.Ct. 154 ]; “It has been understood that, ‘the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.’” (Quoting In re Burrus (1890) 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 [ 34 L.Ed. 500, 503 , 10 S.Ct. 850 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marcella Csibi, Ludovic Csibi, Aurora Csibi and Maria Csibi v. Gizela Fustos, Etc. (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84 , 50 S.Ct. 154, 155 , 74 L.Ed. 489, 498 (1930) (Statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction over suits against foreign consuls was given construction similar to the diversity statute; the grant was interpreted to refer only to ordinary civil proceedings, and “not to include what formerly would have belonged to the ecclesiastical courts.”) The Revised Judicial Code of 1948, Act of June 25,1948, § 1331, 62 Stat. 869 at 930, substituted the broader term “civil actions” in its description of diversity jurisdiction. 5 The domestic relations exception h…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silva v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Supportive of this conclusion is the case of Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-384 [ 74 L.Ed. 489, 497-498 , 50 S.Ct. 154 ], where, in dealing with the similarly worded section of the Judicial Code (§ 256), the Supreme Court stated: “The language so far as it affects the present case is pretty sweeping but like all language it has to be interpreted in the light of the tacit assumptions upon which it is reasonable to suppose that the language was used.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Wilson
E.D. Tenn. · 1970 · confidence medium
Popovici v. Agler (1930), 280 U.S. 379, 383 , 50 S.Ct. 154, 155 , 74 L.Ed. 489, 497-498 (headnote 3); De la Rama v. De la Rama (1906), 201 U.S. 303, 307 , 26 S.Ct. 485, 486 , 50 L.Ed. 765, 767 (headnote 1).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spindel v. Spindel (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the ground that these provisions are inapplicable since the state courts are ousted from jurisdiction only “where * * * it [has been granted] to Courts of the United States” and it “has been unquestioned for three-quarters of a century that the Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over divorce.” 280 U.S. at 383, 50 S.Ct. at 155.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anonymous v. Anonymous
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 1964 · confidence medium
Mr. Justice Holmes emphasized that the entire field of husband-wife, parent-child relations has been understood to belong to the laws of the States, not of the United States; that Federal jurisdiction over divorces and alimony has always been denied; and that, indeed, it was the common understanding when the Constitution was adopted that the domestic relations of husband and wife, and parent and child, were reserved to the States ( 280 U. S. 379, 383, 384 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garberson v. Garberson
N.D. Iowa · 1949 · confidence medium
The extent to which this judicial exception to the statutory grant of so-called diversity jurisdiction has been applied can best be seen from the companion cases of Popovici v. Popovici, D.C.Ohio 1927, 30 F.2d 185 , and Popovici v. Agler, 1930, 280 U.S. 379 , 50 S.Ct. 154 , 74 L.Ed. 489 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Urdaneta v. Urdaneta
N.Y. Fam. Ct. · 1942 · confidence medium
It has been understood that, ‘the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States,’ * * * and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States over divorces and alimony has always been denied. * * * If when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States, there is no difficulty in construing the instrument accordingly and not much in dealing with the statutes. ‘Suits …
discussed Cited "see" Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. Richards (2×)
SCOTUS · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See 280 U. S., at 383-384 . [4] See, e. g., Vestal & Foster, Implied Limitations on the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, 41 Minn. L.
examined Cited "see" Bergstrom v. Bergstrom (3×)
8th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 , 50 S.Ct. 154 , 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930); Overman v. United States, 563 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1977).
examined Cited "see" Bergstrom v. Bergstrom (3×)
8th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 , 50 S.Ct. 154 , 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930); Overman v. United States, 563 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited "see" Huynh Thi Anh and Dao Thanh Linh v. Edward Levi, Attorney General of the United States (2×)
6th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1186-92 (2nd ed. 1973). 10 . 280 U.S. at 383 , 50 S.Ct. at 154 , quoting Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593 , 10 S.Ct. 850 , 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890), a case involving a custody dispute between a child’s father and grandparents. 11 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Marriage of Swan and Swan (3×)
Or. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ohio ex rel Popovici v. Agler, 280 US 379 [, 50 S Ct 154 , 74 L Ed 489 ] (1930).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OHIO Ex Rel. POPOVICI, VICE-CONSUL OF ROUMANIA,
v.
AGLER Et Al.
35.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 27, 1930.
280 U.S. 379
Messrs. Atlee Pomerene and Malcolm Y. Yost, with whom Mr. Frank Harrison was on the brief, for .petitioner., Mr. Harry Nusbaum, with whom Mr. Henry W. Harter, Jr., was on the brief, for respondents.
Holmes.
Cited by 166 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 60%
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The relator was sued for divorce and alimony in a Court of the State of Ohio. He objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, but the objection was overruled and an order for temporary alimony was made. He thereupon applied to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of prohibition, but upon demurrer to the petition the writ was denied. 119 Ohio State, 484. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.

The facts alleged are that the relator is Vice-Consul of Roumania and a citizen of that country, stationed and now residing at Cleveland, Ohio, and it is said by the Supreme Court to have been conceded at the argument that he was married to Helen Popovici, the plaintiff in the original suit, in Stark County, Ohio, where she resided. The relator invokes Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution : “ The Judicial Power shall extend . . .. to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls . . . the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction”; and also the Judicial Code, (Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231) § 256, “ The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States, . . .[*383] Eighth. Of all suits and proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, or against consuls or vice-consuls.” To this, may be added § 24 giving to the- District Court original jurisdiction “ Eighteenth. Of all suits against consuls and vice-consuls ”; the Supreme Court, by § 233, being given “ exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits and proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations.”

The language so far as it affects the present case is pretty sweeping but like all language it has to be interpreted in the light of the tacit assumptions upon which it is reasonable to suppose that the language was used. It has been understood that, “ the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States,” Ex parte Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593, 594, and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States over divorces and alimony always has been denied. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582. Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, 167. De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 307. A suit for divorce between the present parties brought in the District Court of the United States was dismissed. Popovici v. Popovici, 30 Fed. (2d) 185.

The words quoted from the Constitution do not of themselves and without more exclude the jurisdiction of the State. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U. S. 511. The statutes do- not purport to exclude the State Courts from jurisdiction except where they grant it to Courts of the United States. Therefore they do not affect the present case if it be true as has been unquestioned for three-quarters of a century that the Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over divorce. If when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding[*384] was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States, there is no difficulty in construing the instrument accordingly and not much in dealing with the statutes. ‘ Suits against consuls and vice-consuls ’ must be taken to refer to ordinary civil proceedings and not to include what formerly would have belonged to the ecclesiastical Courts.

It is true that there may be objections of policy to one of our States intermeddling with the domestic relations of an official and subject of a foreign power that conceivably might regard jurisdiction as determined by nationality and not by domicil. But on the other hand if, as seems likely, the wife was an American citizen, probably she remained one notwithstanding her marriage. Act of September 22, 1922, c. 411, § 3; 42 Stat. 1021, 1022. Her position certainly is not less to be considered than her husband’s, and at all events these considerations are not for us.

In the absence of any prohibition in the Constitution or laws of the United States it is for the State to decide how far it will go.

Judgment affirmed.