65 N.C. App. 561 - FMS Management Systems, Inc. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2011
8 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
Relies on Williams v. State of North Carolina · Angel v. Bullington · Huntington v. Attrill · Fauntleroy v. Lum · Morris v. Jones
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The “Fauntleroy Doctrine” was followed by our own Supreme Court in Mottu v. Davis, 151 N.C. 237 , 65 S.E. 969 (1909). . . . Defendant points to numerous decisions in which we have stated that a judgment of a court in another state may be attacked on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, fraud in the procurement, or as being against public policy. Although we have so asserted, it is rare that we will disregard a sister state judgment on public policy grounds. The Fauntleroy decision, as noted by a recent commentator, “narrows almost to the vanishing point the area of state public policy relief from the mandate of the Full Faith and Credit Clause —at least so far as the judgments of sister states are concerned.” One exception to the full faith and credit rule is a penal judgment; a state need not enforce the penal judgment of another state. Another exception is when the judgment sought to be enforced is against the public policy of the state where it was initially rendered. The exceptions, however, are few and far between. In general, we are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize and enforce a valid judgment for the payment of money rendered in a sister state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]laintiff's present action concerns the enforcement of a judgment already rendered, not a deficiency sought to be collected. Such judgment, valid and enforceable in Florida, is entitled to full faith and credit here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.