28 U.S.C. § 1739

State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

If the certificate is given by a judge, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that such judge is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such Governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or Possession in which it is made.

Such records or books, or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court and office within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or Possession from which they are taken.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 1341 (limitation on power of district courts to enjoin state taxing systems); 28 U. S. C. § 1739 (requiring that state judicial proceedings be accorded full faith and credit in federal courts); 28 U.”

Joseph A. Yacovone v. William F. Bolger, Postmaster General of the U. S. (1981) cadc · cites it 4× “He would have us reach this result by combining Vermont law on the broad effect to be accorded full pardons with 28 U.S.C. § 1739 , one of the statutory full faith and credit provisions.”

State v. Bernard (1978) la · cites it 6× “Attestation by Custodian, Certificate of Presiding Judge, Certificate of Clerk to official character of Judge" was drafted to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1739 [1] which provides a method of certifying nonjudicial records to insure full faith and credit to those nonjudicial records…”

Barber v. State (1988) texapp · cites it 4× “As part of his argument that the pen packet was not properly admitted, appellant claimed that it did not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1739 , which requires states to give full faith and credit to nonjudicial records kept in any public office of any other state, if the records are…”

State v. Uloho (2004) lactapp “§ 1738 and 28 U.S.C. § 1739 . See, State v. Bernard, supra .”

State v. Moten (1987) lactapp “They are properly authenticated pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1739 . This authentication is valid, and the records are admissible in a Louisiana habitual offender trial.”

Cox v. State (1991) miss “Some of the copied documents had the seal of the clerk of the convicting court; none were certified under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1739 , which provides the method of certifying documents for transmittal between states.”

Matter of Garner (1995) ca5 “1 Moreover, Lehrer contended that the under the full faith and credit requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1739 , “the Court is bound by the finding in the state court judgment that the debt arose from Section 523(a) conduct and is therefore excepted from discharge.”

State v. Langlois (1993) lactapp · cites it 2× “Documents are admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1739 if the records are authenticated by the legal custodian; then the custodian's signature is certified by a judge; finally, the judge's signature is certified.”

Nationwide Investors v. Lawrence B. Miller, in Re Lee Whisler (1986) ca9 “§ 2410 relating to actions affecting property on which the United States has a lien) have never been construed to allow garnishment against a federal employee. Since the state court, and therefore the district court on removal, lacked jurisdiction over the action against the…”

Lance v. Dennis (2006) cod · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs attempt to avoid any preclusive effects of Salazar by asserting that the Salazar litigants asserted only an institutional rights claim under the Elections Clause, whereas Plaintiffs have instead raised an individual rights claim under that Clause.”

Harrison v. State (1989) alacrimapp “the accompanying letter of attestation, but it is insufficient on its face." "THE COURT: How is it insufficient? "[Defense counsel]: It is a foreign document.”

Show all 49 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.