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.
7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2009We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hamilton v. Patterson , 236 S.C. 487, 492 , 115 S.E.2d 68, 70 (1960) ("[T]he 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."); Underwriters Nat. 2009We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hamilton v. Patterson , 236 S.C. 487, 492 , 115 S.E.2d 68, 70 (1960) ("[T]he 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."); Underwriters Nat. | 2 | 5 |
Milliken v. Meyergreen2 sentences2018See 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 2004See Hamilton v. Patterson, 236 S.C. 487, 492 , 115 S.E.2d 68, 70 (1960) ( [T'Jhe 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, (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 462 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940))). | 1 | 5 |
Baker v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2018See 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 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 | 1 | 1 |
V.L. v. E.L.green2 sentences2018See 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 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 | 1 | 1 |
Seymour v. Seymourgreen1 sentence1990Ed. 1009 (1912); accord Seymour v. Seymour, 259 S. C. 26, 29, 190 S. E. (2d) 502, 503 (1972) (“[T]he 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.”). 5 As the Circuit Court correctly ruled, “the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution precludes any inquiry int | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt
red
2 sentences1961Ed. 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 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.