Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Vanderbilt Vs. Vanderbilt

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1957

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

66 entries 10 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Harris Vs. Balk US Supreme Court · May 08, 1905
  2. Pennoyer Vs. Neff US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Milliken Vs. Meyer US Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1940
  4. Armstrong Vs. Armstrong US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1956
  5. EstIn Vs. Estin US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  6. Atherton Vs. Atherton US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1901
  7. Haddock Vs. Haddock US Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1906
  8. Sherrer Vs. Sherrer US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  9. Hughes Vs. Fetter US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1951
  10. Yarborough Vs. Yarborough US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1933
  11. U.S. 416 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt
    Search
  12. U.S. 416 (1957) Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt
    Search
  13. We granted certiorari, 352 U.S. 820. In Estin v. Estin
    Search
  14. Petitioner claims that this case is governed by Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  15. U. S. 551 . For the reasons given in a concurring opinion in Armstrong v. Armstrong
    Search
  16. to the husband's duty to support the wife -- provided, of course, that the Nevada courts had power to do this. Sweeney v. Sweeney
    Search
  17. Herrick v. Herrick
    Search
  18. Nev. 59, 68, 25 P.2d 378, 380. See Estin v. Estin
    Search
  19. See Pennington v. Fourth
    Search
  20. in a State, it can adjudicate his obligations, but only to the extent of his interest in that property. Pennington v. Fourth
    Search
  21. A concurring opinion in Armstrong v. Armstrong
    Search
  22. and the authorities collected there, set forth in greater detail the reasons underlying this holding. Cf. Meredith v. Meredith
    Search
  23. jurisdiction over respondent that must be respected, by command of the Constitution, by every other State, Williams v. North
    Search
  24. alimony to which sister States must also give full faith and credit. Whatever the answer to the question may be, Estin v. Estin
    Search
  25. citing for this proposition Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  26. clarity to give a brief review of the singular history of matrimonial law in this Court since the decision in Atherton v. Atherton
    Search
  27. a divorce granted, on the basis of constructive service, by the matrimonial domicile to a deserted husband. In Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  28. other than the matrimonial domicile. These precedents were applied to the incidental claim to alimony in Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  29. to be given full faith and credit despite the lack of personal jurisdiction over the other spouse. In Williams v. North
    Search
  30. one spouse was domiciled. The limitation of ex parte divorces to the matrimonial domicile imposed by Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  31. Williams v. North
    Search
  32. facts underlying a divorce when both parties had merely made an appearance in the original divorce proceeding. Sherrer v. Sherrer
    Search
  33. U. S. 343 , and Coe v. Coe
    Search
  34. were made by a third party who had not appeared in the original proceeding and who had independent interests. Johnson v. Muelberger
    Search
  35. I through Johnson resulted in a broad extension of the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  36. of divorce in Sherrer and Coe. One might have expected that, since Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  37. supra, was based on Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  38. The Court shrinks from applying Williams I to Thompson. In fact, we are now told that the vice of Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  39. I, are now to be enlarged so far as alimony is concerned. The requirement Page 354 U. S. 423 of Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  40. of the parties and the nature of what is adjudicated that, constitutionally, it may be treated alike. Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  41. and Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  42. This is a far cry from what was involved in Hughes v. Fetter
    Search
  43. domicile provides a basis of jurisdiction that would be sufficient in an ordinary nonmatrimonial action. See Williams v. North
    Search
  44. have been few and far between, apart from Haddock v. Haddock
    Search
  45. See Williams v. North
    Search
  46. American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal
    Search
  47. Custody over children presents an entirely different problem. See May v. Anderson
    Search
  48. well as in New York -- under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to the doctrine of Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  49. the marriage status of a domiciliary without personal service over the absent spouse (as it clearly is, see Williams v. North
    Search
  50. valid in the State where rendered, see the dissent of Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo in Yarborough v. Yarborough
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial