55 Wash. 2d 571 - Guy v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general rule is that this command [U.S. Const, art. 4, § 1] requires the judgment of a sister State to be given full, not partial, credit in the State of the forum. See Davis v. Davis, 305 U. S. 32 , 59 S. Ct. 3 , 83 L. Ed. 26 , 118 A. L. R. 1518; Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 , 63 S. Ct. 207 , 87 L. Ed. 279 , 143 A. L. R. 1273. But a judgment has no constitutional claim to a more conclusive or final effect in the State of the forum than it has in the State where rendered. . . . Whatever may be the authority of a State to undermine a judgment of a sister State on grounds not cognizable in the State where the judgment was rendered (Cf. Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U. S. 226, 230 , 65 S. Ct. 1092, 1095 , 89 L. Ed. 1577 , 157 A. L. R. 1366), it is clear that the State of the forum has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the State where it was rendered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Wash. App. 901 - Ellis v. Nickerson