Although the United States is not a party to any judgment enforcement treaty, courts in this country regularly enforce foreign judgments. Indeed, if jurisdiction in the foreign court is proper and service of process was accomplished appropriately, the expectation should be that the foreign judgment will be enforced. In the past few months, however, there have been two noteworthy cases in which enforcement of foreign judgments was refused.
The State of the Law
The common law basis for enforcing foreign judgments in the United States is typically traced to the Supreme Court's decision in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). Ironically, in that case, the Supreme Court refused to enforce a French judgment on the grounds of lack of reciprocity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's treatment of the enforceability of non-U.S. judgments as a matter of "comity of nations" was a seminal moment that ushered in a regime favorable to enforcing foreign judgments. The Supreme Court described comity as follows:
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. Id. at 164.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
