Barnes v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably 338 Pa. Super. 458 - Noetzel v. Glasgow, Inc. (1985), Wade v. City of Pittsburgh (1985)
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Hanson v. Denckla · Costello v. United States · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Durfee v. Duke · Johnson v. Muelberger
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even had the divorce decree not been challenged and upheld by the courts of Ohio, a collateral attack upon it by a plaintiff in the courts of this Commonwealth would not normally be entertained. Although the full faith and credit clause does not require a sister State to give a greater, more conclusive or more final effect to a foreign judgment or decree than would be given it by the courts of the rendering State, see the Act of June 25, 1948, note 4 supra, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ; and Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 115 and Comment b thereto (1971), principles of interstate comity would indicate abstention by Pennsylvania courts in favor of the courts of the rendering State, in light of their special competence to pass upon the validity of the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of that State. Thus a party seeking relief in our courts on the basis of asserted invalidity (other than jurisdictional) of the judicial proceedings of another State should normally be relegated to the courts of that State for the establishment of the invalidity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.... Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit ... and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.