40 Md. App. 168 - Wolff v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The full faith and credit clause ... does not apply to a divorce obtained in a foreign country. Courts of the United States are not required by federal law to give full force and effect to a judgment granted in a foreign nation. On the other hand, judgments of courts of foreign countries are recognized in the United States because of comity.... This principle is frequently applied i n divorce cases.... The principle of comity, however, has several important exceptions and qualifications. A decree of divorce will not be recognized by comity where it was obtained by a procedure which denies due process of law in the real sense of the term, or was obtained by fraud, or where the divorce offends the public policy of the state in which recognition is sought....’” (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boyter v. Commissioner · Aleem v. Aleem

2. “Except as provided in § 10-704, a foreign judgment meeting the requirements of § 10-702 is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. The foreign judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guinness PLC v. Ward · Andes v. Versant Corp.

3. “the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act was intended to promote principles of international comity by assuring foreign nations that their judgments would, under certain well-defined circumstances, be given recognition by courts in states which have adopted the Uniform Act. As reciprocity is generally an important consideration in determining whether the courts of one country will recognize the judgments of the courts of another ... the certainty of recognition of those judgments provided for by the Act will hopefully facilitate recognition of similar United States’ judgments abroad_ The Act, therefore delineates a minimum of foreign judgments which must be recognized in jurisdictions which have adopted the Act, and in no way constitutes a maximum limitation upon foreign judgments which may be given recognition apart from the Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guinness PLC v. Ward