faith and credit clause in Tennessee

2007This court has frequently stated that “the full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.” First State Bank of Holly Springs, Mississippi v. Wyssbrod, 124 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003); Longphre v. Longphre, No. E2006-00323-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1214965 , at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App.E.S., Apr. 25, 2007); Atchley v. Atchley, 585 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tenn.Ct.App.1978).

2003“The full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.” Id. (citing Atchley v. Atchley, 585 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1978)).

2017In this case, NP‘s counterclaim is an attempt to litigate issues already determined and seek damages already awarded in the prior Illinois case. ―The full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.‖ Coastcom, Inc. v. Cruzen, 981 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

2009“The full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.” Wyssbrod, 124 S.W.3d at 573 (quoting Coastcom, Inc. v. Cruzen, 981 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

2009“The full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.” Wyssbrod, 124 S.W.3d at 573 (quoting Coastcom, Inc. v. Cruzen, 981 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

2007This court has frequently stated that “the full faith and credit clause requires that the common law doctrine of res judicata be applied in one state to a judgment rendered in another state to the same extent that it applied in the state of its rendition.” First State Bank of Holly Springs, Mississippi v. Wyssbrod, 124 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003); Longphre v. Longphre, No. E2006-00323-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1214965 , at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App.E.S., Apr. 25, 2007); Atchley v. Atchley, 585 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tenn.Ct.App.1978).

2013White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-7 (1935): “The very purpose of the full faith and credit clause was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.” Blackwell v. Haslam, No. M2012-01991-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3379364 , at *6; 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 436 , at *16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2013) (quotin

2013White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-7 (1935): “The very purpose of the full faith and credit clause was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 103 cmt. b (2012). -8- Notwithstanding the importance of the principle behind the constitutional provision

2009The doctrine of res judicata bars “a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action, with respect to all the issues which were (or could have been) litigated in the former suit.” Id. at 573-74 (quoting Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corrs., 88 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).

2003“Res judicata is a doctrine which bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action, with respect to all the issues which were (or could have been) litigated in the former suit.” Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep’t of *574 Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995)).

2001Biogen Distrib., Inc. v. Tanner, 842 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992).

2001Biogen Distrib., Inc., v. Tanner, 842 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

1997Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 451-52 (1928); Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 259 (1912); Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43, 57 (1907); Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 643 (1900); Cheever v. Wilson, 76 U.S. 108 (1869); D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 52 U.S. 165 (1850); Hampton v. M’Connel, 16 U.S. 234 (1818); Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481 (1813).

1968Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243 , 32 S.Ct. 415 , 56 L.Ed. 749 .

2024On the contrary, “the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based.” V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404, 407 (2016) (internal citations omitted) (first quoting Baker, 522 U.S. at 233 , then quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462 (1940)).) “As one means of fulfilling this obligation, Tennessee enacted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”).

2024On the contrary, “the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based.” V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404, 407 (2016) (internal citations omitted) (first quoting Baker, 522 U.S. at 233 , then quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462 (1940)).) “As one means of fulfilling this obligation, Tennessee enacted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”).

2017In Illinois, ―[f]or the doctrine of res judicata to apply, three requirements must be met: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there was an identity of cause of action; and (3) there was an identity of parties or their privies.‖ Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996).

2013Under this exception, “Tennessee courts are not obligated to give full faith and credit to any judgment of a state which we hold to be violative of Tennessee’s public policy or the Federal Constitution.” Seiller & Handmaker, LLP v. Finnell, 165 S.W.3d 273, 276-77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Aqua Sun Invs., Inc. v. Henson, 1993 WL 382230 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 1993)).

2003“Res judicata is a doctrine which bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action, with respect to all the issues which were (or could have been) litigated in the former suit.” Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep’t of *574 Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995)).

2003Frazier v. Frazier, 72 S.W.3d 333, 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

2003“Res judicata is a doctrine which bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action, with respect to all the issues which were (or could have been) litigated in the former suit.” Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep’t of *574 Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995)).

2000Co., 844 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)(“the purpose of a supersedeas or appeals bond was to protect the appellee ‘from the inherent risks, such as subsequent insolvency of the appellant, associated with the delay in enforcement of the district court's judgment’ during the appeals process.”)(citing Neeley v. Bankers Trust Co., 848 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1988)). 3 as follows: The very purpose of the full faith and credit clause was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings o

1997Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, 341 (1905). 5 In refining the requirements under the full faith and credit clause, the Supreme Court in Titus v. Wallick, 306 U.S. 282, 291 (1939), stated that: [T]he constitutional mandate requires credit to be given to a money judgment rendered on a civil cause of action in another state, even though the forum would have been under no duty to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded.

1997Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, 341 (1905). 5 In refining the requirements under the full faith and credit clause, the Supreme Court in Titus v. Wallick, 306 U.S. 282, 291 (1939), stated that: [T]he constitutional mandate requires credit to be given to a money judgment rendered on a civil cause of action in another state, even though the forum would have been under no duty to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded.

1997Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 451-52 (1928); Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 259 (1912); Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43, 57 (1907); Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 643 (1900); Cheever v. Wilson, 76 U.S. 108 (1869); D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 52 U.S. 165 (1850); Hampton v. M’Connel, 16 U.S. 234 (1818); Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481 (1813).

1997Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 451-52 (1928); Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 259 (1912); Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43, 57 (1907); Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 643 (1900); Cheever v. Wilson, 76 U.S. 108 (1869); D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 52 U.S. 165 (1850); Hampton v. M’Connel, 16 U.S. 234 (1818); Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481 (1813).