Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiondivorce
divorcerespondent

Related Cases

Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610, 74 S.Ct. 736, 98 L.Ed. 987, 3 V.I. 699
View Case »
Herczog v. Herczog, 186 Cal.App.2d 318, 9 Cal.Rptr. 5
View Case »
Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610, 74 S.Ct. 736, 98 L.Ed. 987, 3 V.I. 699
View Case »
In re Marriage of Edelman and Preston, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847, 38 N.E.3d 50, 395 Ill.Dec. 173
View Case »
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed.2d 355, 72 USLW 4528, 2004-1 Trade Cases P 74,453, 58 Fed.R.Serv.3d 696, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 742, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5382, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7371, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 399
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429, 1 A.L.R.2d 1355

Facts

Edward C. Sherrer and Margaret E. Sherrer were married in New Jersey in 1930 and lived together in Massachusetts until 1944. After a period of marital discord, Margaret left for Florida, where she filed for divorce, claiming to be a bona fide resident. Edward was notified of the proceedings and participated, but later contested the validity of the divorce in Massachusetts, arguing that Margaret was not a resident of Florida at the time of the divorce.

Petitioner Margaret E. Sherrer and the respondent, Edward C. Sherrer, were married in New Jersey in 1930, and from 1932 until April 3, 1944, lived together in Monterey, Massachusetts.

Issue

Did the Massachusetts courts err in allowing a collateral attack on the Florida divorce decree on the grounds of jurisdiction and domicile?

We granted certiorari in this case and in Coe v. Coe, 334 U.S. 378, 68 S.Ct. 1094, to consider the contention of petitioners that Massachusetts has failed to accord full faith and credit to decrees of divorce rendered by courts of sister States.

Rule

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize the judicial proceedings of other states, barring collateral attacks on valid judgments where the parties had the opportunity to contest jurisdiction.

The full faith and credit clause is one of the provisions incorporated into the Constitution by its framers for the purpose of transforming an aggregation of independent, sovereign States into a nation.

Analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Florida court had jurisdiction over the divorce case, as Edward participated in the proceedings and had the opportunity to contest the issue of Margaret's domicile. The Court ruled that allowing Massachusetts to reexamine the Florida court's findings violated the full faith and credit clause, as the Florida decree was valid and final.

Applying these principles to this case, we hold that the Massachusetts courts erred in permitting the Florida divorce decree to be subjected to attack on the ground that petitioner was not domiciled in Florida at the time the decree was entered.

Conclusion

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts court's decision, affirming the validity of the Florida divorce decree and emphasizing the necessity of respecting judicial determinations made by other states.

Reversed.

Who won?

Margaret E. Sherrer prevailed in the case because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of her Florida divorce decree, ruling that the Massachusetts courts could not question the jurisdiction of the Florida court.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts courts erred in permitting the Florida divorce decree to be subjected to attack on the ground that petitioner was not domiciled in Florida at the time the decree was entered.

You must be