Conflict of Laws
Page 1
1
SLIDES
GENERALLY, THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE
(28 USC § 1738) REQUIRES ENFORCING
COURT TO GIVE THE SAME LEGAL
EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT AS THE
RENDERING COURT
2
MAY THE ENFORCING COURT GIVE
THE JUDGMENT MORE EFFECT THAN
THE RENDERING COURT?
3
SUPREME COURT MAY REQUIRE NOT
ONLY THAT SECOND COURT GIVE AS
MUCH PRECLUSIVE EFFECT TO
JUDGMENT AS FIRST COURT, BUT
ALSO NO MORE. MARRESE CASE
(p. 759) (discussed more fully at 796)
4
NOTE THAT MARRESE IS BASED ON
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
STATUTE (28 USC § 1738) WHICH
REQUIRES SAME EFFECT AND APPLIES
TO BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS.
5
NOTE AS TO PENAL AND TAX
JUDGMENTS A COUPLE OF POINTS
6
“PENAL” DOESN’T MEAN WHAT WE
MIGHT THINK
7
PENAL EXCLUSION DOESN’T MEAN
COURT DOESN’T HAVE TO ENFORCE
PUNITIVE DAMAGE JUDGMENTS,
EVEN WHERE STATE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS PUNITIVE DAMAGES (MILLER
V. KINGSLEY Pg. 761)
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 2
8
SLIDES
A JUDGMENT BASED ON TAX LAW
CAN BE ENFORCED (MILWAUKEE
COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., (Pg. 762)
9
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
(p. 764)
10
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
COUPLE LEAVES NORTH CAROLINA
FOR NEVADA WHERE THEY DIVORCE
THEIR SPOUSES, REMARRY EACH
OTHER AND RETURN TO NORTH
CAROLINA TO LIVE.
11
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
NORTH CAROLINA CHARGES BIGAMY
12
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
COUPLE PLEADS NEVADA DIVORCE
AS DEFENSE
13
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
QUESTION: DOES NORTH CAROLINA
HAVE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DIVORCE?
14
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
HELD: NO. NORTH CAROLINA MAY
DETERMINE NEVADA COURT HAD
NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE DOMICILE
IN NEVADA WAS A SHAM.
15
WILLIAMS v. NORTH CAROLINA (II)
APPLIES ONLY TO DEFAULT AND
EX PARTE DIVORCES.
16
SHERRER v. SHERRER (N. 4, p. 773)
SPOUSES CAN’T COLLATERALLY
ATTACK BILATERAL DECREE
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 3
17
SLIDES
JOHNSON v. MUELBARGER (N. 4, p. 773)
CHILDREN CAN’T
18
CAN THE STATE?
NOT TOTALLY CLEAR
19
EMPHASIS HAS SHIFTED FROM
JURISDICTION TO GRANT DIVORCE TO
CUSTODY ISSUES AS DIVORCE LAWS
HAVE LIBERALIZED.
20
PROBLEM: PARENTS HAVE
MOTIVATION TO LITIGATE DIVORCE
AND CUSTODY WHERE LAW FAVORS
THEIR POSITION
21
MAYBE ALIMONY IS MORE OR LESS
LIBERAL, FOR EXAMPLE NOT WHERE
CUSTODY FACTS ARE MOST
AVAILABLE OR CHILD SUPPORT
MOST LIKELY
22
VARIOUS STATUTORY SCHEMES
ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS
23
(1)
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR
CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS ACT
28 USC § 1738B
24
(2)
UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY
JURISDICTION ACT (UCCJA)
25
(3)
PARENTAL KIDNAPPING
PROTECTION ACT (PKPA)
28 USC § 1738A
26
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR CHILD
SUPPORT ORDERS ACT: MEETS
PROBLEM
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 4
27
SLIDES
SUPPORT ORDERS ALWAYS SUBJECT
TO MODIFICATION SO NOT ENTITLED
TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
28
NOW THEY ARE
29
PKPA AND UCCJA SEEK TO PREVENT
PARENTAL “FORUM SHOPPING” TO
DETRIMENT OF CHILDREN
30
CAUSES COURTS TO MAKE SENSE OF
CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS BY
(AMONG OTHER THINGS) CONFERRING.
31
NOTE THIS AREA CAREFULLY FOR
BAR EXAM
FEDERAL STATE RECOGNITION OF
JUDGMENTS
32
SEMTEK INTERNATIONAL INC. v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (p. 780)
33
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
PLAINTIFF SUES MARYLAND CORP. IN
CALIFORNIA
34
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT
DISMISSES BASED ON TWO-YEAR CAL.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
35
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
COURT MAKES DISMISSAL ORDER
“ON THE MERITS” AND “WITH
PREJUDICE”
36
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
PLAINTIFF REFILES IN MARYLAND
WHERE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATION HAS NOT RUN
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 5
37
SLIDES
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
MARYLAND STATE COURTS HOLD
FEDERAL LAW DETERMINES WHETHER
SUIT CAN BE REFILED IN STATE COURT
38
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
QUESTION: IS A DISMISSAL BASED
ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS “ON
THE MERITS” SO AS TO BAR REFILING
IN STATE WHERE IT IS NOT BARRED?
39
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
SUPREME COURT NOTES FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(B)
PROVIDES DISMISSAL WILL BE ON
THE MERITS EXCEPT IN SPECIFIC
INSTANCES, NONE OF WHICH ARE
PRESENT HERE
40
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
ALSO, EARLIER SUPREME COURT
CASE (DUPASSEUR V. ROCHEREAU)
REQUIRED STATE LAW APPLY TO
DETERMINE ISSUE
41
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
HOWEVER, COURT SAYS CHOICE OF
STATE/FEDERAL LAW HAS CHANGED
SINCE THAT CASE
42
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
SUPREME COURT DECIDES RULE IS
THAT STATE LAW DETERMINES THE
PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF THE
DISMISSAL
43
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
ANY OTHER RULE WOULD
ENCOURAGE DEFENDANTS TO
REMOVE CASES TO FEDERAL COURT
TO GET BENEFIT OF THE HARSH RULE
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 6
SLIDES
44
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
THIS IS THE SORT OF FORUM
SHOPPING ERIE WAS INTENDED TO
PREVENT
45
SEMTEK INT’L.v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
COURT REVERSES AND REMANDS TO
MARYLAND COURTS TO CONSIDER
WHAT CALIFORNIA’S CLAIM
PRECLUSION RULE WOULD BE
46
KREMER v. CHEMICAL
CONSTRUCTION CORP. (p. 786)
47
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS CASE —
PLAINTIFF LOSES STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WHICH
STATE COURT AFFIRMED AFTER
LIMITED “ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS” REVIEW
48
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
QUESTION: DOES 28 U.S.C. § 1738
REQUIRE FEDERAL COURTS TO GIVE
PRECLUSIVE EFFECT TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND
STATE COURT REVIEW?
49
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
HELD:
YES — TITLE VII DOES
NOT IMPLIEDLY REPEAL § 1738
50
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
DISSENT SAYS § 1738 NOT APPLICABLE
BECAUSE NO DE NOVO REVIEW ONLY DETERMINATION
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NOT
ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 7
51
SLIDES
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
DISSENT ARGUES THIS CASE HAS THE
EFFECT OF GIVING PRECLUSIVE
EFFECT IN U.S. COURTS TO STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS WHICH
ARE NOT BINDING IN STATE COURTS
52
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
DISSENT ALSO SAYS THE EFFECT OF
THE DECISION IS THAT NOBODY WILL
EVER APPEAL TO STATE COURT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
53
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
RESULT WILL BE MORE CASES GOING
TO FEDERAL COURT
54
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
NOTE PROBLEM THAT CIVIL RIGHTS
LAWS ARE INTENDED TO MAKE UP
FOR STATE COURT DEFICIENCIES
55
KREMER v. CHEMICAL CONST. CORP.
IS GIVING STATE PROCEEDINGS
PRECLUSIVE EFFECTS IN
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES “LEAVING THE
GOAT TO GUARD THE CABBAGES?”
56
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS (p. 796)
57
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
SURGEONS DENIED MEMBERSHIP IN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SUED IN
STATE COURT ASSERTING STATE
LAW CLAIMS OTHER THAN
ANTI-TRUST
58
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
THE SURGEONS LOSE THEIR STATE
COURT CASE
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 8
59
SLIDES
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
SURGEONS THEN BRING SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT CASE IN
FEDERAL COURT
60
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
HELD IN CIRCUIT COURT: BARRED
61
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
QUESTION: DOES STATE COURT
CASE BAR SHERMAN ACT CLAIM
EVEN THOUGH STATE COURT HAD NO
SHERMAN ACT JURISDICTION, SO
STATE COURT COULDN’T HAVE
RULED?
62
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
HELD: REVERSED
63
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
UNDER § 1738 COURT MUST FIRST
LOOK TO STATE LAW TO DETERMINE
PRECLUSIVE EFFECT
64
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
ONLY IF STATE LAW WOULD BAR
CLAIM SHOULD COURT CONSIDER
WHETHER TO APPLY FEDERAL LAW
EXCEPTION TO § 1738 AND HOLD
NO PRECLUSION
65
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED A
FEDERAL PRECLUSION RULE
HOLDING FEDERAL COURT COULD
GIVE GREATER PRECLUSIVE EFFECT
TO STATE JUDGMENT THAN WOULD
STATE COURT AND DISMISSED CASE
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES
Conflict of Laws
Page 9
66
67
SLIDES
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY
NORMALLY, NO PRECLUSION WHERE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE
BECAUSE CLAIM COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN PURSUED IN STATE
COURT ACTION
BACK TO WILLIAMS v. NORTH
CAROLINA : INTERESTING STORY
SEE LAW REVIEW SEE POWELL, AND
REPENT AT LEISURE (Cited at p. 905)
NO CLASS NEXT WED (11/3)
READING ASSIGNMENT:
THURS: 11/4/10-Pages 805-853
NO CLASS WED (11/10)
THURS: 11/11/10-Pages 856-886
Fall 2010
Class 20
NOTES