46 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fleming v. Fleminggreen2 sentences2010App. 345, 349-50 , 271 S.E.2d 584, 587 (1980) (concluding that “[a] decree for the future payment of... child support is, as to installments past due and unpaid, within the protection of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution unless by the law of the state in which the decree was rendered” the amounts are not considered vested). 1999This Court held in Fleming v. Fleming, 49 N.C.App. 345, 349-50 , 271 S.E.2d 584, 587 (1980) that: The full faith and credit clause ... requires that the judgment of the court of one state must be given the same effect in a sister state that it has in the state where it was rendered. | 4 | 8 |
May v. Andersongreen2 sentences1991In May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533-34 , 97 L.Ed. 1221, 1226-27 (1953), the United States Supreme Court essentially held that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not require a state court to honor the custody decree of a sister state rendered in an action where the non-resident defendant did not have “minimum contacts” with the sister state. 1991In May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533-34 , 97 L.Ed. 1221, 1226-27 (1953), the United States Supreme Court essentially held that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not require a state court to honor the custody decree of a sister state rendered in an action where the non-resident defendant did not have “minimum contacts” with the sister state. | 1 | 2 |
Sistare v. Sistaregreen2 sentences1978Id. § 99. “. . . mere modes of execution provided by the laws of a state in which a judgment is rendered are not, by operation of the full faith and credit clause, obligatory upon the courts of another state in which the judgment is sought to be enforced. . . .” Sistaire v. Sistaire, 218 U.S. 1, 26 , 54 L.Ed. 905, 914 , 30 S.Ct. 682, 690 (1910). 1978Id. § 99. “. . . mere modes of execution provided by the laws of a state in which a judgment is rendered are not, by operation of the full faith and credit clause, obligatory upon the courts of another state in which the judgment is sought to be enforced. . . .” Sistaire v. Sistaire, 218 U.S. 1, 26 , 54 L.Ed. 905, 914 , 30 S.Ct. 682, 690 (1910). | 1 | 2 |
Howland v. Stitzergreen2 sentences1980It is improper to permit an alteration or re-examination of the judgment, or of the grounds on which it is based * * * ” Sears v. Sears, 253 N.C. 415, 417 , 117 S.E. 2d 7, 9 (1960), quoting, Howland v. Stitzer, 231 N.C. 528, 531 , 58 S.E. 2d 104, 106 (1950). 1980It is improper to permit an alteration or re-examination of the judgment, or of the grounds on which it is based * * * ” Sears v. Sears, 253 N.C. 415, 417 , 117 S.E. 2d 7, 9 (1960), quoting, Howland v. Stitzer, 231 N.C. 528, 531 , 58 S.E. 2d 104, 106 (1950). | 1 | 2 |
Carr v. Bettgreen2 sentences2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R 2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R | 1 | 1 |
Marworth, Inc. v. McGuiregreen1 sentence2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R | 1 | 1 |
Wooster v. Woostergreen1 sentence2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R | 1 | 1 |
Rosenstein v. Steelegreen2 sentences2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R 2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R | 1 | 1 |
Salmeri v. Salmerigreen1 sentence2014Similarly, the Supreme Court of Nevada stated that “the defenses preserved by Nevada’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and available under NRCP 60(b) are limited to those defenses that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the full faith and credit clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment.” Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573 , 747 P.2d. 230, 232 (1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Marworth, Inc. v. *380 McGuire, 810 P.2d 653, 657 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) (stating that under the Colorado UEFJA “[o]ur courts may consider C.R | 1 | 1 |
Wener v. Perrone & Cramer Realty, Inc.green1 sentence2004App. 362, 364, 528 S.E.2d 65, 67 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (applying North Carolina statute of limitations to a Florida judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Twaddell v. Andersongreen1 sentence2003App. at 66-67 , 523 S.E.2d at 718 (the full faith and credit clause of U.S. Const, art. | 1 | 1 |
Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc., a Corporation of the Territory of Alaska v. Frank H. Molitorgreen1 sentence2000Application of the forum’s statute of limitations entails no violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution since such statutes are deemed to affect procedure only and not the substance of the action. *365 Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359-60 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914 , 17 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Ellison v. Hunsingergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sears v. Searsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spence v. Durhamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lefferts v. Leffertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allman v. Register
green
2 sentences1960This decision does not conflict with our decisions in Allman v. Register, 233 N.C. 531 , 64 S.E. 2d 861 or Richter v. Harmon, 243 N.C. 373 , 90 S.E. 2d 744 , except in the latter case it is stated: “If the petitioner were still a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, the decree in that State awarding the custody of the minor child * * * to her * * would be binding on our courts under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United* States.” The foregoing statement seems to be in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in May v. Anderson, 1960This decision does not conflict with our decisions in Allman v. Register, 233 N.C. 531 , 64 S.E. 2d 861 or Richter v. Harmon, 243 N.C. 373 , 90 S.E. 2d 744 , except in the latter case it is stated: “If the petitioner were still a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, the decree in that State awarding the custody of the minor child * * * to her * * would be binding on our courts under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United* States.” The foregoing statement seems to be in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in May v. Anderson, | 3 | 1951–1960 |
Boyles v. Boyles
green
2 sentences2000Boyles v. Boyles, 59 N.C. 1985Boyles v. Boyles, 59 N.C. | 2 | 1985–2000 |
Lockman v. . Lockman
green
2 sentences1991Ed. 227 (citations omitted). *722 In the case under review defendant argues that the statutory denial of jurisdiction to North Carolina courts to hear suits on judgments based on gaming debts or futures contracts has been upheld as an exception to the application of the full faith and credit clause described by the Court in Milwaukee County as “a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court.” See Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N.C. 95 , 16 S.E.2d 670 (1941); Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369 , 14 S.E.2d 30 (1941). 1991Ed. 227 (citations omitted). *722 In the case under review defendant argues that the statutory denial of jurisdiction to North Carolina courts to hear suits on judgments based on gaming debts or futures contracts has been upheld as an exception to the application of the full faith and credit clause described by the Court in Milwaukee County as “a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court.” See Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N.C. 95 , 16 S.E.2d 670 (1941); Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369 , 14 S.E.2d 30 (1941). | 2 | 1951–1991 |
Dansby v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1988The only question presented is whether the judgment sued on is valid under the law of Virginia; Dansby v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co., 209 N.C. 127 , 183 S.E. 521 (1936); if it is the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution art. 1988The only question presented is whether the judgment sued on is valid under the law of Virginia; Dansby v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co., 209 N.C. 127 , 183 S.E. 521 (1936); if it is the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution art. | 2 | 1938–1988 |
Williams v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1962This clause is now construed to mean that a foreign decree of divorce rendered in a state in which neither of the parties had a bona fide domicile is not required to be recognized in another state under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, and that the court of another state is free to go behind the findings of the foreign divorce court as to the jurisdictional fact of domicile in the divorce forum, and find for itself, contrary to the finding of the foreign divorce court, that no domicile in fact existed in the foreign state to entitle the foreign decree to extraterri 1962This clause is now construed to mean that a foreign decree of divorce rendered in a state in which neither of the parties had a bona fide domicile is not required to be recognized in another state under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, and that the court of another state is free to go behind the findings of the foreign divorce court as to the jurisdictional fact of domicile in the divorce forum, and find for itself, contrary to the finding of the foreign divorce court, that no domicile in fact existed in the foreign state to entitle the foreign decree to extraterri | 2 | 1962–1984 |
State v. . Williams
green
2 sentences1982Marketing Systems v. Realty Co., 277 N.C. 230 , 176 S.E.2d 775 (1970); State v. Williams, 224 N.C. 183 , 29 S.E.2d 744 (1944); Prather, Thomas, Campbell, Pridgeon, Inc. v. Properties, Inc., 29 N.C.App. 316 , 224 S.E.2d 289 (1976). 1982Marketing Systems v. Realty Co., 277 N.C. 230 , 176 S.E.2d 775 (1970); State v. Williams, 224 N.C. 183 , 29 S.E.2d 744 (1944); Prather, Thomas, Campbell, Pridgeon, Inc. v. Properties, Inc., 29 N.C.App. 316 , 224 S.E.2d 289 (1976). | 2 | 1976–1982 |
American Institute of Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Willard Realty Co.
green
2 sentences1982Marketing Systems v. Realty Co., 277 N.C. 230 , 176 S.E.2d 775 (1970); State v. Williams, 224 N.C. 183 , 29 S.E.2d 744 (1944); Prather, Thomas, Campbell, Pridgeon, Inc. v. Properties, Inc., 29 N.C.App. 316 , 224 S.E.2d 289 (1976). 1982Marketing Systems v. Realty Co., 277 N.C. 230 , 176 S.E.2d 775 (1970); State v. Williams, 224 N.C. 183 , 29 S.E.2d 744 (1944); Prather, Thomas, Campbell, Pridgeon, Inc. v. Properties, Inc., 29 N.C.App. 316 , 224 S.E.2d 289 (1976). | 2 | 1976–1982 |
McMillin v. McMillin
green
2 sentences1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. 1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1951–1956 |
Parsley v. Parsley
neutral
2 sentences1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. 1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1951–1956 |
Cole v. Cole
green
2 sentences1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. 1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1951–1956 |
In Re Biggers
green
2 sentences1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. 1956In re Biggers, 228 N.C. 743 , 47 S.E. 2d 32 ; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Col. 247 , 158 P. 2d 444 , 160 A.L.R. 396 ; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292 , 12 So. 2d 425 ; Parsley v. Parsley, 189 La. 584 , 180 So. 417 ; Fraley v. Martin (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1951–1956 |
Taylor v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1948Sharp v. Sharp, supra; Taylor v. Taylor , 218 P. 756 , 51 A.L.R., 1074 ; Perkins v. Mining Co., supra . 1948Sharp v. Sharp,, supra; Taylor v. Taylor, 218 P., 756 , 51 A. L. | 2 | 1948–1948 |
Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City
green
2 sentences1948Jurisdiction is a prerequisite of a valid judgment, 31 A. J., 70; Fitzsimmons v. City of Oklahoma City , 135 P.2d 340 , and if jurisdiction does not exist, enforcement thereof in another state is not compelled by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. 1948Jurisdiction is a prerequisite of a valid judgment, 31 A. J., 70; Fitzsimmons v. City of Oklahoma City, 135 P. (2d), 340 , and if jurisdiction’ does not exist, enforcement thereof in another state is not compelled by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. | 2 | 1948–1948 |
Haddock v. Haddock
red
2 sentences1941This question is answered in the negative by the celebrated case of Haddock v. Haddock , 201 U.S. 562 , 26 Sup. Ct., 525 , 50 L.Ed., 867 , justly recognized as a landmark in the law of foreign divorces. 1941This question is answered in the negative by the celebrated case of Haddock v. Haddock , 201 U.S. 562 , 26 Sup. Ct., 525 , 50 L.Ed., 867 , justly recognized as a landmark in the law of foreign divorces. | 2 | 1932–1941 |
Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor
green
1 sentence2000Application of the forum’s statute of limitations entails no violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution since such statutes are deemed to affect procedure only and not the substance of the action. *365 Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359-60 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914 , 17 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jefferson Construction Co. of Florida v. United States
green
1 sentence2000Application of the forum’s statute of limitations entails no violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution since such statutes are deemed to affect procedure only and not the substance of the action. *365 Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor, 365 F.2d 358, 359-60 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914 , 17 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mayer v. Mayer
green
1 sentence1995In Mayer v. Mayer, 66 N.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cody v. . Hovey
green
2 sentences1991Ed. 227 (citations omitted). *722 In the case under review defendant argues that the statutory denial of jurisdiction to North Carolina courts to hear suits on judgments based on gaming debts or futures contracts has been upheld as an exception to the application of the full faith and credit clause described by the Court in Milwaukee County as “a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court.” See Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N.C. 95 , 16 S.E.2d 670 (1941); Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369 , 14 S.E.2d 30 (1941). 1991Ed. 227 (citations omitted). *722 In the case under review defendant argues that the statutory denial of jurisdiction to North Carolina courts to hear suits on judgments based on gaming debts or futures contracts has been upheld as an exception to the application of the full faith and credit clause described by the Court in Milwaukee County as “a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court.” See Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N.C. 95 , 16 S.E.2d 670 (1941); Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369 , 14 S.E.2d 30 (1941). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Huntington v. Attrill green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Prather, Thomas, Campbell, Pridgeon, Inc. v. Florilina Properties, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Searl v. Searl green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Ross v. California green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In Re Custody of Craigo green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Cleeland v. Cleeland green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Lennon v. Lennon green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Surratt v. Surratt green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Staedler v. Staedler green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Robinson v. United States green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Metrik v. Fort Tryon Gardens, Inc. green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Ballard v. Logan green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Childress v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc. green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Richter v. Harmon green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Goodman v. Goodman green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Lopez v. Avery green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Sadler v. Sadler neutral | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Elliott v. Elliott green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| State Ex Rel. Rasco v. Rasco neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Callahan v. Callahan green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Wilson v. Wilson neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.
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.