"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <> wrote in message news:... > On 31 Mar 2004 16:53:00 GMT, ospam (MarianneLuban) > in sci.archaeology, wrote the following: > > >>Subject: Re: Marianne Luban > >>From: "Steve Marcus" > >>Date: 3/31/2004 2:47 AM Pacific Standard Time > >>Message-id: <Vkxac.29077$oH2.20157@lakeread01> > >> > >> > >>"MarianneLuban" <> wrote in message > >>news:... > >>> >Subject: Re: Marianne Luban > >>> >From: Never anonymous Bud > >>> >Date: 3/30/2004 8:52 PM Pacific Standard Time > >>> >Message-id: <> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >It just goes to show the stupidity of the legal system. > >>> > > >>> >One States Court claims invalid jurisdiction, > >>> >but ALSO 'reverses' that other States judgment. > >>> > > >>> >Nonsensical. > >>> > >>> No, Buddy boy. It doesn't work that way. > >>> One court *vacates* the judgment of another court for lack of in personam > >>> jurisdiction over the defendant. It doesn't *reverse* the judgment of > >>another > >>> state. However, once the parties fully litigate the jurisdictional > >>> question--that's it. It cannot be litigated again. Anywhere. Not even > >>in > >>> the originating state. > >> > >>That's simply wrong. You are confused (probably hopelessly) about the > >>doctrine of res judicata, and the difference between the concept of > >>enforcing a judgment obtained in State X in the courts of State Y as opposed > >>to attempting to secure a judgment in State X, failing (that is losing a > >>lawsuit on the merits as opposed to a procedural technicality), and then > >>attempting to relitigate the merits in another court (whether in the same > >>State or another State). > >> > >>See: > >> > >>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html > >> > >>Which links the "full faith and credit clause" (Article IV) of the > >>Constitution of the United States. See the part re judicial proceedings? > >>How is it that Minnesota didn't give "full faith and credit to the Alabama > >>judgment? Simple. Minnesota held that there was no jurisdiction over one > >>of the parties, (a decision based upon lack of personal jurisdiction being a > >>technicality, not a decision on the merits). But that doesn't bind, let's > >>say Vermont, from giving "full faith and credit" to the Alabama judgment; > >>how could it, since one could equally set up a paradox by arguing that the " > >>full faith and credit" clause could bind Vermont to agree with both > >>Minnesota and Alabama. > >> > >>No, Ms. Luban. Res judicata precludes a party to a lawsuit, who loses on > >>the merits, from relitigating the identical issues. If Ms. > >>Griffis-Greenberg had lost in Alabama, she could not have taken her case to > >>Minnesota and tried it there all over again. But in the situation that you > >>describe, she has a judgment, and absent a **Federal** holding that the > >>judgment cannot be enforced, it _is_ enforceable in every state in the > >>Union, unless that State holds it unenforceable on a jurisdictional matter, > >>which has the effect of saying that "in this State, it isn't a real judgment > >>at all since the court of the other State lacked jurisdiction." > >> > > > > > >>It is hardly suprising that one's "home court", as it were, ultimately > >>issued a protectionist decision for one of its citizens. It happens all the > >>time. Absent a Federal decision on the merits, it just means that in the > >>injunction in unenforceable in Minnesota. And in case you aren't clear, a > >>refusal by the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari is generally > >>regarded as not necessarily implying agreement with the position of either > >>party. > >> > >>See, as one example: > >> > >>http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm > >> > >>If you wish to discuss the matter further (with anyone, I've no real > >>interest in discussing it with you except to get the matter the heck out of > >>sci.archaeology where it does not belong), take it to misc.legal. moderated > >>(misc.legal is a zoo and no discussion there should be credited with any > >>degree of accuracy). > >> > >>> That is why, if Griffis decided to enforce the > >>> injunction in the state where I now live, my defense would still be the > >>same as > >>> before--lack of in personam jurisdiction at the time the injunction was > >>> issued--and the doctrine of res judicata would collaterally estop Griffis > >>from > >>> going any further. Her injunction is worthless. She cannot get a new and > >>> different ruling on the jurisdictional merits of the case. > >> > >>Simply wrong. See above > > > >Throughout this litigation, Griffis contended that the Full Faith and Credit > >Clause required the courts of every other state to honor the Alabama judgment > >that she had obtained by default. Now she contends that despite her fiercely > >contesting the issue of personal jurisdiction all the way to the United States > >Supreme Court, the Full Faith and Credit Clause somehow does not apply to the > >decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. That position is unjustified. > > > >Griffis sought relief in the courts of Minnesota and voluntarily submitted > >herself to the courts of this State when she entered a general appearance in > >this State and sought to enforce the Alabama judgment here. Cf. Durfee v. > >Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 & n.8 (1963); Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's > >Ass'n., 283 U.S. 522, 525-26 (1931). > > > >Because the courts of Minnesota had jurisdiction over Griffis, she is bound by > >the decisions of Minnesota courts on the issues presented to those courts. Cf. > >Baldwin, 283 U.S. at 525-26 ("Public policy dictates that there be an end of > >litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result > >of the contest; and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled > >as between the parties. We see no reason why this doctrine should not apply in > >every case where one voluntarily appears, presents his case and is fully heard, > >and why he should not, in the absence of fraud, be thereafter concluded by the > >judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause."). > > > >The Minnesota Supreme Court squarely decided the issues of lack of personal > >jurisdiction and the concomitant lack of any legal basis upon which the Alabama > >court could have entered the judgment that Griffis sought to enforce. Griffis > >v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002), and Order dated September 17, 2002. The > >decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court are binding upon Griffis personally as > >collateral estoppel and res judicata. In American Surety Company v. Baldwin, > >287 U.S. 156, 166 (1932), the United States Supreme Court held: > >The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to > >other issues. . The principles of res judicata may apply, although the > >proceeding was begun by motion. Thus, a decision in a proceeding begun by > >motion to set aside a judgment for want of jurisdiction is . res judicata, > >and precludes a suit to enjoin enforcement of the judgment. > >The present case similarly is a proceeding begun by motion to set aside the > >Alabama judgment for want of jurisdiction, although the resulting decision here > >was to void rather than to validate the Alabama judgment. The necessary effect > >of the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court is to preclude further attempts > >by Griffis to enforce the Alabama judgment in any other location. Cf. Reed v. > >Univ. of North Dakota, 589 N.W.2d 880, 885 (N.D. 1999) ("The Minnesota decision > >is entitled to full faith and credit in North Dakota, . and res judicata > >precludes Reed from thereafter maintaining an identical claim against UND in > >North Dakota."). > >The decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court are entitled to full faith and > >credit in every other state. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1 ("Full Faith and Credit > >shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial > >Proceedings of every other State."); Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 (1963) > >(a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit - even as to questions of > >jurisdiction - when the subsequent court's inquiry discloses that those > >questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court > >which rendered the prior judgment); Lyon Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Waddill, 625 > >N.W.2d 155, 158 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2001) ("A > >state court judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in other states when > >it is determined that questions have been fully and fairly litigated and > >finally decided in the original court."); id. at 160 (California court's denial > >of motion to dismiss proceeding to enforce default judgment obtained in > >Minnesota was not binding in Minnesota upon subsequent motion to vacate default > >judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, but only because issues of personal > >jurisdiction in fact were never fully and fairly litigated in California). The > >courts of Alabama extend full faith and credit to the decisions of the courts > >of Minnesota. See, e.g., Ex parte Lyon Fin. Serv., Inc., 775 So.2d 181, 183 > >(Ala. 2000). > > > >Cross posted to misc.legal at the request of Steve Marcus. > > Actually, Marcus suggested it cross-posted to misc.legal.moderated, if > you bother to read the above, not misc.legal. > > And this above argument was rejected by the Ramsey County District > Court, in Minnesota, in its Final Order, I might add. > > Just to keep the record straight. > > > -- > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D. > > DISCLAIMER: > > Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship > is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It > isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek > out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your > state's laws and applications thereof. Kindly keep your bullshit newsgroup soap opera out of misc.legal and get a life. misc.legal removed from crosspost list.