comity doctrine in Virginia

1993Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that a decree that is subject to modification and, thus, “does not possess such a degree of finality as to be entitled to full, faith, and credit under the mandate of the federal Constitution, may be recognized and treated ‘with the same force and effect as if it had been entered in Virginia’ under the doctrine of comity.” Scott v. Sylvester, 220 Va. 182, 184 , 257 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1979) (quoting McKeel v. McKeel, 185 Va. 108, 113 , 37 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1946)).

1993Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that a decree that is subject to modification and, thus, “does not possess such a degree of finality as to be entitled to full, faith, and credit under the mandate of the federal Constitution, may be recognized and treated ‘with the same force and effect as if it had been entered in Virginia’ under the doctrine of comity.” Scott v. Sylvester, 220 Va. 182, 184 , 257 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1979) (quoting McKeel v. McKeel, 185 Va. 108, 113 , 37 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1946)).

1983Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220, 233-34 (1946); Worthley v. Worthley, [ 44 Cal.2d 465 ,] 468-74, 283 P.2d [19,] 22-25 [(1955)]. 220 Va. at 84-85, 255 S.E.2d at 497 .

1979Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220, 233-34 (1946); Worthley v. Worthley, supra at 468-74 , 283 P.2d at 22-25 .

1992Noting the provisions of Code § 20-88.30:6(A), the court cited Alig v. Alig, 220 Va. 80 , 255 S.E.2d 494 (1979), which held: [i]n enforcing a foreign decree of alimony arrearages under the comity doctrine, due process requires that a court consider any questions of modification raised by either party which could have been presented to the courts of the state where the decree was originally entered.

1992Noting the provisions of Code § 20-88.30:6(A), the court cited Alig v. Alig, 220 Va. 80 , 255 S.E.2d 494 (1979), which held: [i]n enforcing a foreign decree of alimony arrearages under the comity doctrine, due process requires that a court consider any questions of modification raised by either party which could have been presented to the courts of the state where the decree was originally entered.

1997In the case of a small child, the habitual residence of person who has custody, and other family and social aspects, must be the decisive factors. 4 . "[T]he legal basis for recognizing the law of another country is the doctrine of comity ... [which is] a rule of voluntary consent ... defined as a courtesy or a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right but out of deference, respect, and good will." In re S.M., 938 S.W.2d 910, 918-19 (Mo.App.1997) (citations omitted). 5 .

1993Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that a decree that is subject to modification and, thus, “does not possess such a degree of finality as to be entitled to full, faith, and credit under the mandate of the federal Constitution, may be recognized and treated ‘with the same force and effect as if it had been entered in Virginia’ under the doctrine of comity.” Scott v. Sylvester, 220 Va. 182, 184 , 257 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1979) (quoting McKeel v. McKeel, 185 Va. 108, 113 , 37 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1946)).

1993Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that a decree that is subject to modification and, thus, “does not possess such a degree of finality as to be entitled to full, faith, and credit under the mandate of the federal Constitution, may be recognized and treated ‘with the same force and effect as if it had been entered in Virginia’ under the doctrine of comity.” Scott v. Sylvester, 220 Va. 182, 184 , 257 S.E.2d 774, 775 (1979) (quoting McKeel v. McKeel, 185 Va. 108, 113 , 37 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1946)).

1990E.g., Oehl, 221 Va. at 622 , 272 S.E.2d at 443 ; Osborne v. Osborne, 215 Va. 205, 208 , 207 S.E.2d 875, 880-81 (1974).

1990E.g., Oehl, 221 Va. at 622 , 272 S.E.2d at 443 ; Osborne v. Osborne, 215 Va. 205, 208 , 207 S.E.2d 875, 880-81 (1974).