Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1928–1993 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Andersongreen2 sentences1986As this court has stated: "The purpose of the full-faith-and-credit clause is 'to establish throughout the federal system the salutory principle of the common law that a litigation once pursued to judgment shall be as conclusive of the rights of the parties in every other court as in that in which the judgment was rendered, so that a cause of action merged in a judgment in one state is likewise merged in every other.'" Anderson v. Anderson, 36 Wis. 2d 455, 463 , 153 N.W.2d 627 (1967). 1986As this court has stated: "The purpose of the full-faith-and-credit clause is 'to establish throughout the federal system the salutory principle of the common law that a litigation once pursued to judgment shall be as conclusive of the rights of the parties in every other court as in that in which the judgment was rendered, so that a cause of action merged in a judgment in one state is likewise merged in every other.'" Anderson v. Anderson, 36 Wis. 2d 455, 463 , 153 N.W.2d 627 (1967). | 1 | 3 |
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Huntred2 sentences1980And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Our supreme court has stated: The purpose of the full-faith-and-credit clause is “to establish throughout the federal system the salutary principle of the common law that a litigation once pursued to judgment shall be as conclusive of the rights of the parties in every other court as in that in which the judgment was rendered, so that a cause of action merged in a judgment in one state is likewise merged in every other.” Anderson v. Anderson, 36 Wis.2d 1967The purpose of the full-faith-and-credit clause is “to establish throughout the federal system the salutary principle of the common law that a litigation once pursued to judgment shall be as conclusive of the rights of the parties in every other court as in that in which the judgment was rendered, so that a cause of action merged in a judgment in one state is likewise merged in every other.” Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt (1943), 320 U. S. 430, 439 , 64 Sup. Ct. 208, 88 L. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Haagensen
green
2 sentences1993She relies on Hansen v. Haagensen, 178 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 (1971). 1993She relies on Hansen v. Haagensen, 178 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 (1971). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Hansen v. Haagensen
neutral
2 sentences1993She relies on Hansen v. Haagensen, 178 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 (1971). 1993She relies on Hansen v. Haagensen, 178 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 (1971). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Hartenstein v. Hartenstein
green
2 sentences1986(Citation omitted.) We also accord the records and judicial proceedings of other states "... '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.'" Hartenstein v. Hartenstein, 18 Wis. 2d 505 , 510-11 n. 1, 118 N.W.2d 881 (1963). 1986(Citation omitted.) We also accord the records and judicial proceedings of other states "... '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.'" Hartenstein v. Hartenstein, 18 Wis. 2d 505 , 510-11 n. 1, 118 N.W.2d 881 (1963). | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Tom v. State Ex Rel. Tom
green
1 sentence1967Tom v. State (Fla. 1963), 153 So. 2d 334 ; In re Forslund (1963), 123 Vt. 341 , 189 Atl. 2d 537. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
In Re Forslund
green
1 sentence1967Tom v. State (Fla. 1963), 153 So. 2d 334 ; In re Forslund (1963), 123 Vt. 341 , 189 Atl. 2d 537. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Williams v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence1948The court further found and concluded: (No. 12) “That because of the established rule that, notwithstanding the full-faith-and-credit clause of the United States constitution, as announced in Williams v. North Caro *256 lina, 325 U. S. 226 , and other cases, such finding of jurisdiction by the Nevada court was not binding upon this court, this court allowed to the plaintiff [Louise Ische] herein the widest latitude in her attempt to show that the defendant had not established bona fide residence in Nevada and that as a consequence thereof, the Nevada court was without jurisdiction to render th | 1 | 1948–1948 |
VanDyke v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n
neutral
2 sentences1939Men’s Asso. 358 Ill. 458, 461 , 193 N. E. 490 , referring to the full-faith-and-credit clause of the federal constitution, the court said: “We have held that the record of a judgment rendered in another state may be questioned as to the existence of facts recited therein which were necessary to give the court jurisdiction. 1939Men’s Asso. 358 Ill. 458, 461 , 193 N. E. 490 , referring to the full-faith-and-credit clause of the federal constitution, the court said: “We have held that the record of a judgment rendered in another state may be questioned as to the existence of facts recited therein which were necessary to give the court jurisdiction. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Stetson v. Stetson
green
2 sentences1938Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479 , 77 Atl. 1 ; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238 ; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483 , 15 Atl. 60 ; State ex rel. 1938Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479 , 77 Atl. 1 ; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238 ; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483 , 15 Atl. 60 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Morrill v. Morrill
green
2 sentences1938Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479 , 77 Atl. 1 ; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238 ; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483 , 15 Atl. 60 ; State ex rel. 1938Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479 , 77 Atl. 1 ; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238 ; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483 , 15 Atl. 60 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Wakefield v. Ives
neutral
1 sentence1938Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479 , 77 Atl. 1 ; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238 ; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483 , 15 Atl. 60 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper
yellow
1 sentence1933Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145 , 52 Sup. Ct. 571. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Converse v. Hamilton
green
1 sentence1930In Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243 , 32 Sup. Ct. 415, the United States supreme court held that under the full-faith-and-credit clause of the federal constitution the courts of the state of Wisconsin could not deny the right of a receiver of a Minnesota corporation to prosecute an action in the state of Wisconsin, against a citizen of Wisconsin, on his liability under a like assessment against him as a stockholder in such corporation, by the courts of Minnesota. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Nevian v. Poschinger
green
2 sentences1928Although the question was touched upon in Neman v. Poschinger, 23 Ind. App. 695 , 55 N. E. 1033 , there seems to be no authoritative adjudication in Indiana upon, the question of whether or not a plaintiff may summon himself as garnishee in an action instituted against the defendant. 1928Although the question was touched upon in Neman v. Poschinger, 23 Ind. App. 695 , 55 N. E. 1033 , there seems to be no authoritative adjudication in Indiana upon, the question of whether or not a plaintiff may summon himself as garnishee in an action instituted against the defendant. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.