HILTON V.
GUYOT
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. BUS IT IS THE RECOGNITION WHICH ONE NATION ALLWS WITHIN ITS TERRITORY TO THE LEGISLATIVE, EXEVUTIVE, 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 TH EPROTECTION OF ITS LAWS. THERE IS A DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT GROUND UPON WHICH WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE COMITY OF OUR NATION DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO GIVE CONCLUSIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS OF FRANCE; AND THA T GROUND IS THE WANT OF RECIPROCITY, ON THE PART OF FRANCE AS TO THE EFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS AND OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
ERIE R.R. V. TOMPKINS:
FEDERAL COURTS ARE TO LOOK TO STATE COMMON LAW FOR SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN DIVERSITY CASES, THUS RECOGNITION OF JUDGMENTS BECOMES A MATTER OF STATE LAW
SOMPORTEX LTD. PHILADELPHIA CEEWING GUM CORP.:
COMITY SHOULD BE WITHHELD ONLY WHEN ITS ACCEPTANCE WOULD BE CONTRARY OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE NATION CALLED UPON TO GIVE IT EFFECT RECIPROCITY IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENFORCEMENT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT DEFENDANT CANNOT CHOOSE ITS FORUM TO TEST THE FACTUAL BASIS OF JURISDICTION WHILE PENNSYLVANIA MAY AGREE THAT [CERTAIN] ELEMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE VARIACE WITH PENNSYLVANIA LAW IS NOT SUCH THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OFFENDS THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE
HILTON V. GUYOT RESTATEMENT
OLD UNIFORM ACT
MANDATORY: 1)IMPARTIAL SYSTEM 2)PERSONAL JURISDICTION 3)SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DISCRETIONARY: 1)NOTICE 2)FRAUD 3)PUBLIC POLICY (COA) 4)CONFLICTING JUDGMENT 5)FORUM SELECTION 6)TAG JURISDICTION
NEW UNIFORM ACT
REQUISITES FOR RECOGNITION: 1)FULL & FAIR TRIAL 2)PERSONAL JURISDICTION 3)REGULAR PROCEEDINGS 4)NOTICE 5)IMPARTIAL SYSTEM 6)NO PREJUDICE 7)NO OTHER REASON TO DENY COMITY (I.E. RECIPROCITY)
MANDATORY: 1)IMPARTIAL SYSTEM 2)PERSONAL JURISDICTION DISCRETIONARY: 1)SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 2)NOTICE 3)FRAUD 4)PUBLIC POLICY (COA) 5)CONFLICTING JUDGMENT 6)FORUM SELECTION
MANDATORY: 1)IMPARTIAL SYSTEM 2)PERSONAL JURISDICTION 3)SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DISCRETIONARY: 1)NOTICE 2)FRAUD 3)PUBLIC POLICY (COA) 4)CONFLICTING JUDGMENT 5)FORUM SELECTION 6)TAG JURISDICTION 7)IMPARTIAL COURT 8)DUE PROCESS (PROCEEDINGS)
BACHANAN V. INDIA ABROAD
Under English law, any published statement which adversely affects a persons reputation is prima facie defamatory. Statements concerning fact are presumed to be fault and the Defendant must plead justification for the issue of truth to be brought before the jury. In the US, placing the burden of proving truth on such a defendant has been ruled unconstitutional. Protection to free speech and press would be jeopardized by entry of foreign judgments so antithetical to the protections afforded by the US Constitution It is doubtful whether this court has discretion to enforce the judgment if the action in which it was rendered failed to comport with the constitutional standard for adjudicating libel claims.
Telnikoff v. Matusevitch
American and Maryland history reflects a public policy in favor of a much broader and more protective freedom of the press than ever provided for in England. Maryland defamation law is totally different from English defamation law in virtually every respect. Those differences are rooted in historic and fundamental public policy differences concerning freedom of the press and speech. The principles governing English defamation actions are so contrary to Maryland defamation law and to the policy of freedom of the press underlying the law that the judgment should be denied recognition under principles of comity.
Variation One:
1. LACK OF IMPARTIAL TRIBUNALS 2. LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 3. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 4. LACK OF PROPER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND 5. FRAUD 6. PUBLIC POLICY 7. CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS 8. CHOICE OF FORUM 9. TAG JURISDICTION AND FORUM NON CONVENIENS
VARIATION TWO
EXAMINE GERMAN LIBEL LAW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN FOREIGN ADJUDICATIONS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS NEED NOT BE IDENTICAL TO THOSE EMPLOYED IN AMERICAN COURTS. THEY NEED ONLY BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.