Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Baker Vs. General Motors Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 1998

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

65 entries 11 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Fauntleroy Vs. Lum US Supreme Court · May 18, 1908
  2. Sherrer Vs. Sherrer US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  3. Magnolia Petroleum Co. Vs. Hunt US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1943
  4. Hansberry Vs. Lee US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1940
  5. Thompson Vs. Whitman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  6. Lynde Vs. Lynde US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1901
  7. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Vs. Epstein US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1996
  8. EstIn Vs. Estin US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  9. Fall Vs. Eastin US Supreme Court · Nov 01, 1909
  10. Cole Vs. Cunningham US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1890
  11. Watts Vs. Waddle US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1832
  12. Baker v. General
    Search
  13. Motors Corp. - 522 U.S. 222 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Baker Et Al. V. General
    Search
  14. governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land. See, e. g., Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
    Search
  15. in determining the law applicable to a controversy, see Nevada v. Hall
    Search
  16. to the full faith and credit due judgments, see, e. g., Estin v. Estin
    Search
  17. money have long been considered equivalent to judgments at law entitled to nationwide recognition. See, e. g., Barber v. Barber
    Search
  18. such measures remain subject to the evenhanded control of forum law. See McElmoyle ex rel. Bailey v. Cohen
    Search
  19. of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority. See, e. g., Fall v. Eastin
    Search
  20. power over those parties, and no basis for commanding them to become intervenors in the Elwell-GM dispute. See Martin v. Wilks
    Search
  21. in a lawsuit brought by parties who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Michigan court. Cf. United States v. Nixon
    Search
  22. Elwell v. General
    Search
  23. Id., at 277. See also Estin v. Estin
    Search
  24. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial
    Search
  25. since then, the command for full faith and credit to judgments has remained constant. 233 Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
    Search
  26. other words, the judgment of the rendering State gains nationwide force. See, e. g., Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
    Search
  27. Kremer v. Chemical
    Search
  28. use of the plain English terms claim and issue preclusion in lieu of res judicata and collateral estoppel, see Migra v. Warren
    Search
  29. State's decree concerning land ownership in another State has been held ineffective to transfer title, see Fall v. Eastin
    Search
  30. rights and obligations running between the par ties to the foreign litigation, see, e. g., Robertson v. Howard
    Search
  31. litigation elsewhere, even if compatible with due process as a direction constraining parties to the decree, see Cole v. Cunningham
    Search
  32. in fact have not controlled the second court's actions regarding litigation in that court. See, e. g., James v. Grand
    Search
  33. an injunction, in any event, are generally administered by the court that issued the injunction. See, e. g., Stiller v. Hardman
    Search
  34. Court has held it impermissible for a state court to enjoin a party from proceeding in a federal court, see Donovan v. Dallas
    Search
  35. be invoked against one who did not participate in the prior adjudication. See BlonderTongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  36. and he cannot sue again to recover more. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  37. cf. Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United
    Search
  38. United States v. First
    Search
  39. a judgment do not travel with the judgment itself for purposes of full faith and credit, see McElmoyle ex rel. Bailey v. Cohen
    Search
  40. and just as one State's judgment cannot automatically transfer title to land in another State, see Fall v. Eastin
    Search
  41. of Elwell's testimony, the Bakers would of course be precluded from relitigating that issue in Missouri. See Cromwell v. County
    Search
  42. decree cannot command obedience elsewhere on a matter the Michigan court lacks authority to resolve. See Thomas v. Washington
    Search
  43. Bailey v. Cohen
    Search
  44. Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  45. U. S. 183, 187 (1901) (quoting McElmoyle, supra, at 325). See, e. g., Watts v. Waddle
    Search
  46. even when the law underlying those judgments contravenes the public policy of the second State. See, e. g., Estin v. Estin
    Search
  47. Williams v. North
    Search
  48. Syllabus Baker Et Al. V. General
    Search
  49. Nevada v. Hall
    Search
  50. Bailey v. Cohen
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial