Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWhitten, Ralph U.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-14T03:12:32Z
dc.date.available2013-02-14T03:12:32Z
dc.date.issued1981en_US
dc.identifier.citation14 Creighton L. Rev. 499 (1980-1981)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/39262
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|Students of contemporary American Civil Procedure are taught that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment constitutes the principal limitation upon the authority of state courts to adjudicate disputes involving nonresident defendants. The full faith and credit clause, Article IV, section , of the Constitution, today plays a subordinate role in restricting state-court jurisdiction: a judgment rendered by a state-court without jurisdiction violates the due process clause and is, therefore, invalid in the state of rendition; such a judgment is also not entitled to full faith and credit in a sister state. However, a judgment by a state court with jurisdiction satisfies the requirements of due process and is valid in the state of rendition; such a judgment is generally also entitled to full faith and credit in a sister state. The Supreme Court's decision in Pennoyerv. Neff has played a central role in establishing this way of looking at the constitutional limits on state authority...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleConstitutional Limitations on State-Court Jurisdiction: A Historical-Interpretative Reexamination of the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses (Part One), Theen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume14en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1980-1981en_US
dc.description.pages499en_US
dc.contributor.cuauthorWhitten, Ralph U.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record