faith and credit clause in New Hampshire

1980Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1910); Moore v. Moore, supra at 131-32, 71 A.2d at 411 .

1950The further statement of the court on pages 212, 213 is in point: “It was settled by Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1 , that the full faith and credit clause applies to an unalterable decree of alimony for a divorced wife.

2014See Simmonds v. Parks, 329 P.3d 995, 1016 (Alaska 2014) (discussing due process requirements under the full faith and credit clause of the Indian Child Welfare Act when granting comity to a parental rights termination and child custody order).

2005“The full faith and credit clause of the [United States] Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based.” Wilson v. Shepard, 124 N.H. 392, 396 (1983) (quotation, brackets and ellipsis omitted).

1997See Dailey v. Dallas Carriers Corp., 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 48, 51-52 (Ct. App.) (explaining United States Supreme Court recognizes that State where injury occurred, State where employment relationship created, and State where injured employee resides have significant contacts), review denied (Cal. July 10, 1996) (unpublished disposition); see also Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 412-14 (1955).

1997See Dailey v. Dallas Carriers Corp., 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 48, 51-52 (Ct. App.) (explaining United States Supreme Court recognizes that State where injury occurred, State where employment relationship created, and State where injured employee resides have significant contacts), review denied (Cal. July 10, 1996) (unpublished disposition); see also Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 412-14 (1955).

1994See Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 109 (1963).

1983However, the full faith and credit clause does not demand “that a judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction of the person, but which is in no way responsive to the issues tendered by the pleadings and is rendered in the actual absence of the defendant, must be recognized as valid in the courts of any other State.” Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, 264 (1891).

1983Rather, the enforcing court may inquire as to “whether the judgment so rendered was so far responsive to the issues tendered by the pleadings as to be a proper exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the court rendering it.” Id. at 265 .