The enforcement of a foreign judgment rests on whether there is comity with the jurisdiction from which it is issued, based on criteria articulated by the Court.
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.[1]
Hilton established the fundamental basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States,[2] remaining "the most detailed exposition of any American court" on this principle.[3] It is also viewed as the quintessential statement of comity in international law,[4] and is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to assert that international law is part of U.S. law.[5]
Background
Hilton and Libbey, U.S. citizens conducting business in Paris, France, were sued in French court by Guyot, the administrator of a French firm, for sums allegedly owed to that firm. They appeared and litigated the merits before the French court, which rendered a judgment against them that was affirmed by a higher court and became final. Guyot sought to enforce that judgment in federal district court in New York, which held that the French judgment was enforceable without retrial on the merits. Hilton and Libbey subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The central question before the Court was whether a judgment had force beyond the limits of the sovereign jurisdiction from which its authority derived. In finding that there was no applicable treaty or domestic statute from which an answer could be derived, the Court determined that it was incumbent on the judiciary to ascertain the law, based on guidance from "judicial decisions, from the works of jurists and commentators, and from the acts and usages of civilized nations."
In an opinion authored by Justice Horace Gray, the Court, drawing upon both domestic and international legal sources, concluded that whether any foreign judgment was to be enforced in the U.S. rested on whether there was comity between the U.S. and the foreign jurisdiction in question. In articulating this position, the Court set forth the general standard for making this determination and for what defined international comity.
No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. The extent to which the law of one nation, as put in force within its territory, whether by executive order, by legislative act, or by judicial decree, shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation, depends upon what our greatest jurists have been content to call 'the comity of nations.' Although the phrase has been often criticised, no satisfactory substitute has been suggested. 'Comity,' in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.[6]
Applying this standard, the Court reasoned, after examining relevant French laws and judicial decisions, that a French court would not have recognized a foreign judgment without having first considered its merits. Therefore, based on the notion of reciprocity derived from international comity, U.S. courts should similarly examine the merits of any judgment prior to ruling on its enforcement. The judgment of the U.S. circuit court was subsequently reversed and the case remanded for retrial.
The Court's opinion is notable for drawing heavily from international legal sources, specifically the laws and practices of over a dozen nations all over the world regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Thus, Hilton was one of the first Supreme Court cases to apply customary international law—the prevailing practices of states—in making its determination as to non-U.S. judgments:
It appears, therefore, that there is hardly a civilized nation on either continent, which, by its general law, allows conclusive effect to an executory foreign judgment for the recovery of money. In France, and in a few smaller States — Norway, Portugal, Greece, Monaco, and Hayti — the merits of the controversy are reviewed, as of course, allowing to the foreign judgment, at the most, no more effect than of being prima facie evidence of the justice of the claim. In the great majority of the countries on the continent of Europe — in Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, in many cantons of Switzerland, in Russia and Poland, in Roumania, in Austria and Hungary, (perhaps in Italy,) and in Spain — as well as in Egypt, in Mexico, and in a great part of South America, the judgment rendered in a foreign country is allowed the same effect only as the courts of that country allow to the judgments of the country in which the judgment in question is sought to be executed.
↑ David J. Levy, International Litigation: Defending and Suing Foreign Parties in U.S. Federal Courts (American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, 2003), p. 343, 346.
↑ Levy, p. 343 (quoting Willis L. M. Reese, The Status in this Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Columbia Law Review 783, 790 (1950))).
↑ International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts:, 2d rev. ed., p. 355.
Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.
Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.
In law, comity is "a practice among different political entities " involving the "mutual recognition of legislative, executive, and judicial acts."
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states, or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.
In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.
In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:
Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the enforcement of extraprovincial judgments. The Court held that the standard for enforcing a default judgment from a different province is not the same as if it were from another country; rather the Court adopts the test from Indyka v Indyka, [1969] 1 AC 33 (HL) and Moran v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd, [1975] 1 SCR 393 where there must be a "real and substantial connection" between the petitioner and the country or territory exercising jurisdiction.
The principle of lis alibi pendens applies both in municipal law, public international law, and private international law to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. To avoid the problem, there are two rules.
Hunt v T&N plc, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of laws. The Court ruled that the Quebec law prohibiting the removal of company documents from the province was constitutionally inapplicable to a British Columbia court order. The decision was significant in that it affirmed much of the reasoning from Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye (1990) and further held that the principles first identified in Morguard are fundamental to the constitution.
The act-of-state doctrine or federal act of state doctrine is a principle of federal common law in the United States which states, in circumstances where it applies, that courts in the United States will not rule on the validity of another government's (formal) sovereign act with respect to property located within the latter's own territory. The act-of-state doctrine enters consideration most often in cases where a foreign sovereign has expropriated the property of a U.S. national located in that foreign territory.
The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that resolves disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.
Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc 2006 SCC 52 is a leading Canadian case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of laws. The Court held that foreign non-monetary judgments may be enforced in Canada where they have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the rendering is final, and the nature of the judgment is such that comity requires it to be enforced.
Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), is a U.S. corporate law decision by the United States Supreme Court. It held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Of greater consequence, the Court further held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing the business of insurance beyond the United States Congress's legislative reach.
International litigation, sometimes called transnational litigation, is the practice of litigation in connection with disputes among businesses or individuals residing or based in different countries.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants. In so ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its 1936 decision in Triplett v. Lowell, which had required mutuality of estoppel to bar such preclusion, and held that the better view was to prevent relitigating if the plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
