Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This case continues to be the leading case cited by American courts when articulating the doctrine of comity. [28] It is an important decision for the country as it articulates the definition of comity and does so in a more broad way than previously.
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted (pursued as fully as possible) in the original one. The doctrine was originally created by case law based on the principles of comity.
The court’s decision was based on the principles of comity. The real and substantial connection doctrine has subsequently become the dominant test for whether Canadian courts recognize and enforce foreign judgments. The original doctrine from Morguard only applied to inter-provincial judgments within Canada. [22]
The underlying principles, such as basing respect given to foreign courts on reciprocal respect or comity, also apply in civil law systems in the form of the legal doctrine of lis alibi pendens. Forum non conveniens is not exclusive to common law nations: the maritime courts of the Republic of Panama , although not a common law jurisdiction ...
The "stripping doctrine" permits a state official who used his or her position to act illegally to be sued in his or her individual capacity. [citation needed] However, the government itself is still immune from being sued through respondeat superior. [citation needed] The courts have called this "stripping doctrine" a legal fiction.
A federal court recently said the Internet Archive is not protected by fair use doctrine.
The modern Supreme Court has affirmed Toucey’s understanding that the Act is rooted in notions of comity and federalism. [26] Per the Court, the Anti-Injunction Act's "core message" is "respect for state courts," [27] and it was "designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts."