| Revision as of 00:42, 1 June 2004 editLord Emsworth (talk | contribs)28,672 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:09, 1 June 2004 edit undoLord Emsworth (talk | contribs)28,672 edits →Full Faith and CreditNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Article Four''' of the ] relates to the states. It provides for the responsibilities states have to each other, and the responsibilities the federal government has to the states. Furthermore, it provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries. | '''Article Four''' of the ] relates to the states. It provides for the responsibilities states have to each other, and the responsibilities the federal government has to the states. Furthermore, it provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries. | ||
| ==Full |
==Full faith and credit== | ||
| The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted. | The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted. | ||
| In ''Mills v. Druyee'' (]), the Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. | In ''Mills v. Druyee'' (]), the Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. In a later case, Chief Justice ] suggested that the judgment of one state court had to be recognized by other states' courts as final. Marshall's suggestion was not followed, however, when the Supreme Court decided ''McElmoyle v. Cohen'' in ]. In that case, one party had obtained judgment in ] and sought to enforce it in ]. Georiga law, however, had a statute of limitations that purported to bar actions on judgments if a certain amount of time had passed since they were rendered by the court. The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment. It found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the laws and procedures of the states in which they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority accorded in the states in which they are pronounced. | ||
| ==Interstate relations== | |||
Revision as of 01:09, 1 June 2004
Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. It provides for the responsibilities states have to each other, and the responsibilities the federal government has to the states. Furthermore, it provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries.
Full faith and credit
The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
In Mills v. Druyee (1813), the Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. In a later case, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court had to be recognized by other states' courts as final. Marshall's suggestion was not followed, however, when the Supreme Court decided McElmoyle v. Cohen in 1839. In that case, one party had obtained judgment in South Carolina and sought to enforce it in Georgia. Georiga law, however, had a statute of limitations that purported to bar actions on judgments if a certain amount of time had passed since they were rendered by the court. The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment. It found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the laws and procedures of the states in which they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority accorded in the states in which they are pronounced.