Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

comity

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 75 U.S. 168 - Paul v. Virginia · 1868Most cited · 1,098 citing opinions

The recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States—a comity which is never extended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers are prejudicial to their interests or repugnant to their policy.

How the Supreme Court has restated “comity”

18501860188019001917 most cited: 75 U.S. 168 - Paul v. Virginia (1868)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “comity,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “comity”

18501900195020002030257

Court decisions citing the 8 opinions that defined “comity” — 2,004 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 8 definitions, chronological · 1850–1917

  1. 1850·52 U.S. 33 - Oakey v. Bennett[p94]· cited 54×
    ORIGINAL

    A statutable conveyance of property cannot strictly operate beyond the local jurisdiction. Any effect which may be given to it beyond this does not depend upon international law, but the principle of comity; and national comity does not require any government to give effect to such assignment, when it shall impair the remedies or lessen the securities of its own citizens.

    foreign assignment

  2. That comity has not yet reached our courts. We do not know why it should do so, so long as we have no national bankrupt laws. The rule which prevailed whilst these States were colonies still continues to be the rule in the courts of the United States, and it is not otherwise between the courts of the States.

    assignees in bankruptcy not extraterritorial

  3. 1868·74 U.S. 139 - Green v. Van Buskirk[p19]· cited 191×

    there is no absolute right to have such transfer respected, and it is only on a principle of comity that it is ever allowed. And this principle of comity always yields when the laws and policy of the State where the property is located has prescribed a different rule of transfer with that of the State where the owner lives

    personal property transfer

  4. Trusts of the same kind, although to be carried out in a foreign state by a foreign corporation in regard to property within the District, cannot be said to violate any policy or statute of the District, so long as the statute permits therein grants on similar trusts, although to its own corporations. ... [s]ince Bank of Augusta v. Earle ... this doctrine of comity between states in relation to corporations has been steadily maintained, and it has been recognized by this court in many instances.

    perpetuity trust for cemetery upkeep

  5. Comity,' in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation on the one hand nor of mere courtesy and good will upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.

  6. The rule is one of comity only, and has a wide application in civil cases, but a limited one in criminal cases.

    prior jurisdiction rule

  7. 1917·243 U.S. 15 - Bond v. Hume[p5]· cited 124×

    It is elementary that the right to enforce a foreign contract in another foreign country could alone rest upon the general principles of comity. But, elementary as is the rule of comity, it is equally rudimentary that an independent state under that principle will not lend the aid of its courts to enforce a contract founded upon a foreign law where to do so would be repugnant to good morals, would lead to disturbance and disorganization of the local municipal law, or, in other words, violate the public policy of the state where the enforcement of the foreign contract is sought.

    enforcement of foreign contracts