faith and credit clause in South Carolina

2018See V.L., 136 S.Ct. at 1020 ("With respect to [foreign] judgments, 'the full faith and credit obligation is exacting.'" (quoting Baker, 522 U.S. at 233 )); Baker, 522 U.S. at 233 ("A final judgment in one [s]tate, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land."); V.L., 136 S.Ct. at 1020 ("A [s]tate may not disregard the judgment of a sister [s]tate because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits."); id. ("On the contrary, 'the fu

2000Where a judgment is rendered by a court with jurisdiction of the case and the parties, “ ‘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.’ ” Hamilton, 236 S.C. at 492 , 115 S.E.2d at 70 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).

1961Ed. 278 . `Because there is a full faith and credit clause a defendant may not a second time challenge the validity of the plaintiff's right which has ripened into a judgment.' Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt , 320 U.S. 430 , 64 S.Ct. 208, 214 , 88 L.Ed. 149 , 150 A.L.R. 413 .

1961Ed. 278 . `Because there is a full faith and credit clause a defendant may not a second time challenge the validity of the plaintiff's right which has ripened into a judgment.' Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt , 320 U.S. 430 , 64 S.Ct. 208, 214 , 88 L.Ed. 149 , 150 A.L.R. 413 .

2013Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 250 (9th Cir.1992) (“Even if a foreign court lacked jurisdiction to pronounce a judgment, a party will be barred from collaterally attacking a judgment entered by that court if the party appeared there, contested jurisdiction, and lost.”); id. (“If the foreign court decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim, that determination itself is res judicata.”) (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111-12 , 84 S.Ct. 242 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963)).

2013Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 250 (9th Cir.1992) (“Even if a foreign court lacked jurisdiction to pronounce a judgment, a party will be barred from collaterally attacking a judgment entered by that court if the party appeared there, contested jurisdiction, and lost.”); id. (“If the foreign court decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim, that determination itself is res judicata.”) (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111-12 , 84 S.Ct. 242 , 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963)).

1984The Supreme Court in Yarborough holds that the full faith and credit clause "applies to an unalterable decree of alimony for a divorced wife [and] likewise to an unalterable decree of [support] for a minor child." Id. at 213 , 54 S.Ct. at 185 .

1984The Supreme Court in Yarborough holds that the full faith and credit clause "applies to an unalterable decree of alimony for a divorced wife [and] likewise to an unalterable decree of [support] for a minor child." Id. at 213 , 54 S.Ct. at 185 .

2013In Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641 , 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908), a Mississippi court denied full faith and credit to a Missouri judgment entered on a cause of action for enforcement of a contract that was illegal in Mississippi.

2013In Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641 , 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908), a Mississippi court denied full faith and credit to a Missouri judgment entered on a cause of action for enforcement of a contract that was illegal in Mississippi.

2013Full faith and credit is required to be given to the judgment of another state, although the original suit on which it was based arose in the state of the forum and was barred there by the Statute of Limitations when the judgment was rendered and where the original suit was upon a gambling contract invalid by the law of the forum where it was made. 296 U.S. 268, 277 , 56 S.Ct. 229 , 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935) (citations omitted).

2013Full faith and credit is required to be given to the judgment of another state, although the original suit on which it was based arose in the state of the forum and was barred there by the Statute of Limitations when the judgment was rendered and where the original suit was upon a gambling contract invalid by the law of the forum where it was made. 296 U.S. 268, 277 , 56 S.Ct. 229 , 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935) (citations omitted).

2013See, e.g., Morris v. Jones, 329 U.S. 545, 551 , 67 S.Ct. 451 , 91 L.Ed. 488 (1947) (“[A] judgment obtained in a sister State is, with exceptions not relevant here, entitled to full faith and credit in another State, though the underlying claim would not be enforced in the State of the forum.” (citation omitted)); Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 452 , 48 S.Ct. 142 , 72 L.Ed. 365 (1928) (“[T]he judgment, if valid where rendered, must be enforced in such other State although repugnant to its own statutes.”); Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 546 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) (the full faith

2013See, e.g., Morris v. Jones, 329 U.S. 545, 551 , 67 S.Ct. 451 , 91 L.Ed. 488 (1947) (“[A] judgment obtained in a sister State is, with exceptions not relevant here, entitled to full faith and credit in another State, though the underlying claim would not be enforced in the State of the forum.” (citation omitted)); Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 452 , 48 S.Ct. 142 , 72 L.Ed. 365 (1928) (“[T]he judgment, if valid where rendered, must be enforced in such other State although repugnant to its own statutes.”); Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 546 , 68 S.Ct. 1213 , 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) (the full faith

2004Carson , 326 S.C. at 548 .

2003The Court reasoned: The leading cases, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), dealt with the question whether the courts of one jurisdiction could render a judgment that was valid and binding against a defendant everywhere and so could be carried to another State, where enforcement could be had under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.

2003The Court reasoned: The leading cases, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), dealt with the question whether the courts of one jurisdiction could render a judgment that was valid and binding against a defendant everywhere and so could be carried to another State, where enforcement could be had under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.

2003The Court reasoned: The leading cases, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), dealt with the question whether the courts of one jurisdiction could render a judgment that was valid and binding against a defendant everywhere and so could be carried to another State, where enforcement could be had under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.

2003The Court reasoned: The leading cases, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), dealt with the question whether the courts of one jurisdiction could render a judgment that was valid and binding against a defendant everywhere and so could be carried to another State, where enforcement could be had under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.

1972Ford v. Ford, 371 U. S. 187 , 83 S. Ct. 273 , 9 L.

1972Ford v. Ford, 371 U. S. 187 , 83 S. Ct. 273 , 9 L.

1972As pointed out in State v. Campbell, 242 S. C. 64, 129 S. E. (2d) 902 , the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution did not prevent an inquiry into, the jurisdiction of the court by which a judgment offered in evidence was rendered; and the record of a judgment rendered in another State might be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, notwithstanding a recital in the judgment that such facts did exist.

1963R. 719; Johnson v. Johnson, 194 S. C. 115, 8 S. E. (2d) 351 , the present question apparently has not heretofore been considered by this Court.

1963While we have enforced under the full faith and credit clause alimony decrees of other states where the judgments were not subject to retroactive modification, Alexander v. Alexander, 164 S. C. 466, 162 S. E. 437 , 82 A. L.

1963We so held in State v. Westmoreland, 76 S. C. 145, 56 S. E. 673 , 8 L.

1951Lee v. Moncks, 318 Mass. 513 , 62 N. E. (2d) 657; 57 Am.

1940We held in Scheper v. Scheper, 125 S. C., 89, 118 S. E., 178 , that a foreign judgment in a divorce action rendered by a competent Court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter is entitled under the full faith and credit clause to such force and effect in South Carolina Courts as may properly be accorded the judgment of another state under the rules governing the extra-territorial effect of such judgments.

1924State v. Chadwick (Re Ward), 133 Minn., 117 ; 157 N. W., 1076 ; 158 *28 N. W., 637; L.

1924State v. Chadwick (Re Ward), 133 Minn., 117 ; 157 N. W., 1076 ; 158 *28 N. W., 637; L.

1924State v. Chadwick (Re Ward), 133 Minn., 117 ; 157 N. W., 1076 ; 158 *28 N. W., 637; L.

1923Fall v. Eas *100 tin, 215 U. S., 1 ; 30 Sup. Ct., 3; 54 L.

1923Fall v. Eas *100 tin, 215 U. S., 1 ; 30 Sup. Ct., 3; 54 L.

1923See McCreery v. Davis, 44 S. C., 195; 22 S. E., 178 ; 28 L.