7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hilton v. Guyotgreen2 sentences2006“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 , 867 P.2d 706 ]; see also Hilton v. Guyot (1895) 159 U.S. 113, 202-203 [ 40 L.Ed. 95 , 16 S.Ct. 139 ].) In the present case, there is no dispute that England had jurisdiction as both parties were domiciled there at the time and Levin filed his claim of malprac 2006“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 , 867 P.2d 706 ]; see also Hilton v. Guyot (1895) 159 U.S. 113, 202-203 [ 40 L.Ed. 95 , 16 S.Ct. 139 ].) In the present case, there is no dispute that England had jurisdiction as both parties were domiciled there at the time and Levin filed his claim of malprac | 4 | 4 |
In Re Stephanie M.green2 sentences2023Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746, fn. 4 ; Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 [employing comity to give effect to a foreign judgment]; see also Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 939 [“Comity ordinarily requires that courts of a separate sovereign not interfere with 26 concurrent proceedings based on the same transitory claim, at least until a judgment is reached in one action, allowing res judicata to be pled in defense”].) Relying on federal authority, our high court held, “The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreig 2022“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy. [Citations].” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 .) Collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party | 2 | 4 |
Levin v. Ligongreen2 sentences2023Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746, fn. 4 ; Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 [employing comity to give effect to a foreign judgment]; see also Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 939 [“Comity ordinarily requires that courts of a separate sovereign not interfere with 26 concurrent proceedings based on the same transitory claim, at least until a judgment is reached in one action, allowing res judicata to be pled in defense”].) Relying on federal authority, our high court held, “The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreig 2016“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 ; accord, Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 .) A party often seeks recognition of a foreign 22 judgment in order to have it enforced, but “recognition may also be sought so that a party may rely on res judicata or collateral estoppel principles.” (Manco Contracting C | 2 | 2 |
cluster 433759green2 sentences2023Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746, fn. 4 ; Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 [employing comity to give effect to a foreign judgment]; see also Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 939 [“Comity ordinarily requires that courts of a separate sovereign not interfere with 26 concurrent proceedings based on the same transitory claim, at least until a judgment is reached in one action, allowing res judicata to be pled in defense”].) Relying on federal authority, our high court held, “The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreig 2023(See Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 827, 837 , citing Mahan v. Gunther (1996) 278 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 1116–1117 [“While a court of equity has the power to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from instituting or proceeding with foreign actions, the exercise of such power is a matter of great delicacy and is to be invoked with great restraint in order to avoid distressing conflicts and reciprocal interference with jurisdiction”]; Advanced Bionics, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 707 [“ ‘ “ ‘This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of respect for | 1 | 1 |
Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.green1 sentence2023(See Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 827, 837 , citing Mahan v. Gunther (1996) 278 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 1116–1117 [“While a court of equity has the power to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from instituting or proceeding with foreign actions, the exercise of such power is a matter of great delicacy and is to be invoked with great restraint in order to avoid distressing conflicts and reciprocal interference with jurisdiction”]; Advanced Bionics, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 707 [“ ‘ “ ‘This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of respect for | 1 | 1 |
Thomson v. Continental Insurancegreen1 sentence2023Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746, fn. 4 ; Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 [employing comity to give effect to a foreign judgment]; see also Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 939 [“Comity ordinarily requires that courts of a separate sovereign not interfere with 26 concurrent proceedings based on the same transitory claim, at least until a judgment is reached in one action, allowing res judicata to be pled in defense”].) Relying on federal authority, our high court held, “The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreig | 1 | 1 |
Renoir v. Redstar Corp.green1 sentence2016“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 ; accord, Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 .) A party often seeks recognition of a foreign 22 judgment in order to have it enforced, but “recognition may also be sought so that a party may rely on res judicata or collateral estoppel principles.” (Manco Contracting C | 1 | 1 |
Manco Contracting Co.(WLL) v. Bezdikiangreen1 sentence2016“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 ; accord, Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 .) A party often seeks recognition of a foreign 22 judgment in order to have it enforced, but “recognition may also be sought so that a party may rely on res judicata or collateral estoppel principles.” (Manco Contracting C | 1 | 1 |
Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasumagreen1 sentence2016“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 ; accord, Levin v. Ligon (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1475 .) A party often seeks recognition of a foreign 22 judgment in order to have it enforced, but “recognition may also be sought so that a party may rely on res judicata or collateral estoppel principles.” (Manco Contracting C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023(See Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 827, 837 , citing Mahan v. Gunther (1996) 278 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 1116–1117 [“While a court of equity has the power to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from instituting or proceeding with foreign actions, the exercise of such power is a matter of great delicacy and is to be invoked with great restraint in order to avoid distressing conflicts and reciprocal interference with jurisdiction”]; Advanced Bionics, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 707 [“ ‘ “ ‘This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of respect for | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Mahan v. Gunther
green
1 sentence2023(See Biosense Webster, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 827, 837 , citing Mahan v. Gunther (1996) 278 Ill.App.3d 1108 , 1116–1117 [“While a court of equity has the power to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from instituting or proceeding with foreign actions, the exercise of such power is a matter of great delicacy and is to be invoked with great restraint in order to avoid distressing conflicts and reciprocal interference with jurisdiction”]; Advanced Bionics, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 707 [“ ‘ “ ‘This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of respect for | 1 | 2023–2023 |
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber
green
1 sentence2022“The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy. [Citations].” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 .) Collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Thomas v. Gordon
green
1 sentence2006Consequently, the record contains no evidence that Levin was prejudiced by an unfair tribunal or proceeding. 10 We therefore see no reason for refusing to apply judicial estoppel on the basis that the prior proceeding was in an English court. *1476 Indeed, the policy reasons may be somewhat more compelling when the first hearing is in a foreign court. “ 1 “[T]he ‘essential function and justification of judicial estoppel is to prevent the use of intentional self-contradiction as a means of obtaining unfair advantage in a forum provided for suitors seeking justice.’ ” ’ ” (Thomas v. Gordon, supr | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Victrix Steamship Co. v. Salen Dry Cargo
green
1 sentence1994Co., S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B. (2d Cir.1987) 825 F.2d 709, 713 .) Extension or denial of comity is discretionary and is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. ( Remington Rand v. Business Systems, Inc. (3d Cir.1987) 830 F.2d 1260 , 1266.) (5b) Thus, the courts of this state are not required to give effect to the Mexican decree. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Remington Rand Corporation-Delaware v. Business Systems Incorporated
green
1 sentence1994Co., S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B. (2d Cir.1987) 825 F.2d 709, 713 .) Extension or denial of comity is discretionary and is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. ( Remington Rand v. Business Systems, Inc. (3d Cir.1987) 830 F.2d 1260 , 1266.) (5b) Thus, the courts of this state are not required to give effect to the Mexican decree. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.