Wed. Apr. 2

1. Wed. Apr. 2

2. Hughes v Fetter(US 1951)

3. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George(US 1914)

4. Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965) • Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga corporation • Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp statute even though Ga statute said action had to be brought before Ga Comp board • The rule of Tennessee Coal “has been eroded by the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers and Pacific Insurance.”

5. Privileges & Immunities Clause

6. State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity) • Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination • and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end

7. CT has guest statute, New York does not • NY guest and host get into accident in CT • Guest sues host in CT court, which – using interest analysis – does not apply guest statute • Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

8. - What if NY guest sues CT host in CT state ct for accident in CT- ct resolves true conflict by applying NY law- any P&I violation?- ct resolves true conflict by applying CT guest statute- any P&I violation?

9. What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT • CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT) • Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

10. PreclusionRes Judicata

11. P sues D concerning property damages that arose from a car accident • D wins (D not negligent) • May P sue to recover property damages arising from the same accident again? • Assume instead that P won • P brings suit on the judgment • May D collaterally attack the judgment on the merits • May D collaterally attack the judgment for lack of jurisdiction? • May P sue concerning personal injury arising from the same accident?

12. May P2 (another person harmed in the accident) sue D for negligence? • If D had been determined to be not negligent in P’s suit, is P2 precluded from relitigating D’s negligence • If D had been determined to be negligent in P’s suit, is D precluded from relitigating D’s negligence?

13. Fauntleroy v Lum(US 1908)

14. The main argument urged by the defendant to sustain the judgment below is addressed to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws of Mississippi make dealing in futures a misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that sort, made without intent to deliver the commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be enforced by any court." The defendant contends that this language deprives the Mississippi courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. There, the New York statutes refused to provide a court into which a foreign corporation could come, except upon causes of action arising within the state, etc., and it was held that the State of New York was under no constitutional obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme court against its will. One question is whether that decision is in point.

15. The case quoted concerned a statute plainly dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the New York court. The statute now before us seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision. The Mississippi court in which this action was brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and would have to decide upon the validity of the bar if the suit upon the award or upon the original cause of action had been brought there. The words "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying that an action shall not be brought to enforce such contracts.

16. Yarborough v Yarborough(US 1933)

17. Stone, J., dissenting • “For present purposes, we may take it that the Georgia decree, as the statutes and decisions of the state declare, is unalterable, and, as pronounced, is effective to govern the rights of the parties in Georgia. But there is nothing the decree itself or in the history of the proceedings which led to it to suggest that it was rendered with any purpose or intent to regulate or control the relationship of parent and child, or the duties which flow from it, in places outside the State of Georgia where they might later come to reside.”

18. “It would be going further than this Court has been willing to go in any decision to say that the power of a state to pass judgment upon the sanity of its own citizen could be foreclosed by an earlier judgment of the court of some other state dealing with the same subject matter.”

19. “Parties who have in one state litigated the proper construction of a will disposing of realty are not, by the judgment there, concluded in another state where the testator's realty is located. Nor will a divorce decree seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to realty be conclusive with respect to land outside the state. The interest of a state in controlling all the legal incidents of real property located within its boundaries is deemed so complete and so vital to the exercise of its sovereign powers of government within its own territory as to exclude any control over them by the statutes or judgments of other states.”

20. “More than once, this Court has approved the doctrine that a state need give no effect to judgments for conviction of crime or for penalties procured in a sister state.”

21. Georgia has mutuality requirement for issue preclusion • Alabama does not • P sues D in Georgia state court • D is found negligent • P2 sues D in Alabama state court concerning same accident • May P2 issue preclude D from relitigating his negligence?

22. Durfee v Duke(US 1963)

23. Kalb v Feuerstein (US 1940) • State ct took jurisd over a foreclosure proceeding – as a result farmer lost farm • State judgment not given FF&C because at the time a bankruptcy action was pending, which deprived state ct of jurisd • State court was unaware of bankruptcy action • as dictum SCt said that even if state ct found that it had jurisd over an action despite bankruptcy, the judgment could be ignored