faith and credit clause in Kentucky

1952It will be unnecessary to go further in the discussion of the matter other than to rest upon the Anderson case above and quote therefrom the pertinent and controlling part here: “Under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (U. S.C.A.Const. art. 4, § 1) it is obligatory upon the courts of this state to give recognition to valid decrees of the courts of sister states, Boissevain v. Boissevain, 224 App.Div. 576 , 231 N.Y.S. 529 ; Rice v. Barkman, 249 Ill.App. 127 , and to take jurisdiction of an action to enforce judgment recovered in another state although it might have re

1952It will be unnecessary to go further in the discussion of the matter other than to rest upon the Anderson case above and quote therefrom the pertinent and controlling part here: “Under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (U. S.C.A.Const. art. 4, § 1) it is obligatory upon the courts of this state to give recognition to valid decrees of the courts of sister states, Boissevain v. Boissevain, 224 App.Div. 576 , 231 N.Y.S. 529 ; Rice v. Barkman, 249 Ill.App. 127 , and to take jurisdiction of an action to enforce judgment recovered in another state although it might have re

1978The United States Supreme Court went on to say in the case of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 537 , 73 S.Ct. 840, 845 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953), “The only escape from obedience (with the full faith and credit clause) lies in holding that the judgment rendered in the [sister state] ... is void and entitled to no standing even in the [sister state.] It is void only if it denies due process of law.” The options and obligations of law are limited, concise and direct.

1978The United States Supreme Court went on to say in the case of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 537 , 73 S.Ct. 840, 845 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953), “The only escape from obedience (with the full faith and credit clause) lies in holding that the judgment rendered in the [sister state] ... is void and entitled to no standing even in the [sister state.] It is void only if it denies due process of law.” The options and obligations of law are limited, concise and direct.

1977Under the authority of In re Clay, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 301 (1953), the trial committee concluded that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution (Article 4, § 1) required Signer to be disbarred or suspended in Kentucky so long as the Ohio disbarment continued in full force and effect.

1967The importance of this decision is that in the course of it the court makes the following statement “[wjhether the South Carolina court’s interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is a correct one is a question we have previously reserved.” In the footnote to this statement, the court cites Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610 , 91 L.Ed. 1133 , 67 S.Ct. 903 , in which it had held the courts of New York could modify a decree entered in Florida because such decree was open for modification in Florida.

1967The importance of this decision is that in the course of it the court makes the following statement “[wjhether the South Carolina court’s interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is a correct one is a question we have previously reserved.” In the footnote to this statement, the court cites Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610 , 91 L.Ed. 1133 , 67 S.Ct. 903 , in which it had held the courts of New York could modify a decree entered in Florida because such decree was open for modification in Florida.

1953Anderson v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 281 Ky. 531 , 136 S.W.2d 741 .

1953Anderson v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 281 Ky. 531 , 136 S.W.2d 741 .

1952Generally speaking, the effect of the provision regarding full faith and credit is that in courts of other states the judgment of a court of one state is not impeachable except for want of jurisdiction or for fraud, Lamb v. Powder River Livestock [Live Stock] Company, 8 Cir., 132 F. 434 , 67 L.R.A. 558 , and one sued on such a judgment may not go behind it and contradict the cause of action upon which it was based. [President and Directors of] Bank of [State of] Alabama v. Dalton, Miss., 9 How. 522 , 13 L.Ed. 242 .

1952Generally speaking, the effect of the provision regarding full faith and credit is that in courts of other states the judgment of a court of one state is not impeachable except for want of jurisdiction or for fraud, Lamb v. Powder River Livestock [Live Stock] Company, 8 Cir., 132 F. 434 , 67 L.R.A. 558 , and one sued on such a judgment may not go behind it and contradict the cause of action upon which it was based. [President and Directors of] Bank of [State of] Alabama v. Dalton, Miss., 9 How. 522 , 13 L.Ed. 242 .

1952Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 , 16 S.Ct. 810 , 40 L.Ed. *809 986; Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 153 U.S. 671 , 14 S.Ct. 947 , 38 L.Ed. 861 .

1952Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 , 16 S.Ct. 810 , 40 L.Ed. *809 986; Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 153 U.S. 671 , 14 S.Ct. 947 , 38 L.Ed. 861 .

1952Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 , 16 S.Ct. 810 , 40 L.Ed. *809 986; Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 153 U.S. 671 , 14 S.Ct. 947 , 38 L.Ed. 861 .

1952Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U.S. 329 , 16 S.Ct. 810 , 40 L.Ed. *809 986; Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 153 U.S. 671 , 14 S.Ct. 947 , 38 L.Ed. 861 .

1952Generally speaking, the effect of the provision regarding full faith and credit is that in courts of other states the judgment of a court of one state is not impeachable except for want of jurisdiction or for fraud, Lamb v. Powder River Livestock [Live Stock] Company, 8 Cir., 132 F. 434 , 67 L.R.A. 558 , and one sued on such a judgment may not go behind it and contradict the cause of action upon which it was based. [President and Directors of] Bank of [State of] Alabama v. Dalton, Miss., 9 How. 522 , 13 L.Ed. 242 .

1952Generally speaking, the effect of the provision regarding full faith and credit is that in courts of other states the judgment of a court of one state is not impeachable except for want of jurisdiction or for fraud, Lamb v. Powder River Livestock [Live Stock] Company, 8 Cir., 132 F. 434 , 67 L.R.A. 558 , and one sued on such a judgment may not go behind it and contradict the cause of action upon which it was based. [President and Directors of] Bank of [State of] Alabama v. Dalton, Miss., 9 How. 522 , 13 L.Ed. 242 .

1952It will be unnecessary to go further in the discussion of the matter other than to rest upon the Anderson case above and quote therefrom the pertinent and controlling part here: “Under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (U. S.C.A.Const. art. 4, § 1) it is obligatory upon the courts of this state to give recognition to valid decrees of the courts of sister states, Boissevain v. Boissevain, 224 App.Div. 576 , 231 N.Y.S. 529 ; Rice v. Barkman, 249 Ill.App. 127 , and to take jurisdiction of an action to enforce judgment recovered in another state although it might have re

1925Cas. 1, the Supreme Court cited the case of Atherton v. Atherton as authority for the following: “It is settled that where the domicil of a husband is in a particular state, and that state is also the domicil of matrimony, the courts of such state having jurisdiction over the husband may, in virtue of the duty of the wife to be at the matrimonial domicil, disregard an unjustifiable absence therefrom, and treat the wife as having her domicil in the state of the matrimonial domicil for the purpose of the dissolution of the marriage, and'as a result have power to render a judgment dissolving the

1925Cas. 1, the Supreme Court cited the case of Atherton v. Atherton as authority for the following: “It is settled that where the domicil of a husband is in a particular state, and that state is also the domicil of matrimony, the courts of such state having jurisdiction over the husband may, in virtue of the duty of the wife to be at the matrimonial domicil, disregard an unjustifiable absence therefrom, and treat the wife as having her domicil in the state of the matrimonial domicil for the purpose of the dissolution of the marriage, and'as a result have power to render a judgment dissolving the

1924A. (N. S.) 1068, “Where a court of one state has decreed the future payment of alimony, and when an installment or installments of the alimony so decreed have become due and payable and are unpaid, is such a judgment as to accrued and past due alimony ordinarily embraced within the scope of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States, so as to impose the constitutional duty upon the court of another state to give effect to such judgment?” Further along in that opinion, the court, after discussing two prior cases before the Supreme Court dealing with the question (