Also known as: public acts · public records
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An official act or record created or maintained by a public officer or agency. Such acts carry presumptive authenticity and receive full faith and credit across jurisdictions when properly authenticated.
Anchor Bank records a satisfaction piece after Albert Allen pays off his loan in full. The county recorder enters the document into the public index. Title examiners later rely on the entry to confirm that no encumbrance remains on the property.
A court in State D enters a money judgment against Alice Atkins. Gate Buildings presents a certified copy of the judgment to a court in State E. The State E court must treat the judgment as conclusive under the constitutional command to honor public acts of other states.
Citizens for Open Government offers an investigative report prepared by a city agency that details alterations to council minutes. The report contains factual findings reached after an official inquiry. The court admits the report under the public-records exception because the agency acted pursuant to legal authority.
Astra Aerospace pays off a mortgage held by Anchor Bank on property owned by Adrian Aguilar. The payment occurs because Astra expected a security interest of equal priority. A court recognizes Astra as subrogee and permits it to enforce the mortgage against junior lienholders whose interests appear in the public records.
The government seeks to enjoin the New York Times from printing excerpts of classified documents. The newspaper contends that the documents are already part of the public domain through prior leaks. The Court refuses the injunction because the government cannot overcome the heavy presumption against prior restraints on public information.
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy. The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint. In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule. Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
View caseA Virginia court grants Amelia Amari a divorce decree. Her former spouse later challenges the decree's validity in a District of Columbia proceeding. The D.C. court must give the Virginia decree the same effect it would receive in Virginia because the decree constitutes a judicial proceeding of another state.
In 1909 petitioner and respondent married and lived together in the District of Columbia until about the time he brought suit for limited divorce. They had a son and a daughter. On October 29, 1925, the supreme court of the District of Columbia granted petitioner a divorce a mensa et thoro on the ground of cruelty, awarded custody of the son to him and of the daughter to her, and directed him to pay $300 a month for support of wife and daughter. Petitioner brought suit in the circuit court of Arlington County, Virginia, alleging that he was a resident of that State for the requisite time. On June 26, 1929, the circuit court entered a decree granting him an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion after finding that he had been a resident of Virginia for the requisite time and that respondent had willfully deserted him since February 24, 1925. Process was served personally on respondent in the District of Columbia. She filed a plea stating she appeared specially to challenge jurisdiction, alleging that neither party had been a resident of Virginia for a year before suit and that his residence was a fraud upon the court. The Virginia court referred the cause to a commissioner in chancery who, after taking testimony pursuant to a stipulation of counsel limiting inquiry to the jurisdictional facts raised in the plea, reported that petitioner was a bona fide resident and the court had jurisdiction. Respondent filed exceptions reiterating the allegations of her plea. After a hearing the court overruled the exceptions, confirmed the report, found it had jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties, and granted respondent time to file an answer, which she did not do. The final Virginia decree granted petitioner absolute divorce, divested respondent of rights in his property, and required him to pay $150 per month for support of the daughter. On December 30, 1929, petitioner applied to the District court to set aside or modify its 1925 decree on the basis of the Virginia decree. The application was denied and affirmed on appeal without any question as to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court being considered or decided. On April 16, 1935, petitioner filed another application citing the Virginia decree, the daughter's marriage, and diminution of his income. After a hearing at which respondent sought to introduce evidence that petitioner went to Virginia solely to obtain a divorce and never became a bona fide resident there, the trial court denied relief. The court of appeals held that the Virginia court did not have full jurisdiction and its decree was not entitled to full faith and credit, and remanded for further proceedings.
View caseThe clause requires each state to give the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state the same effect they would receive in the rendering state. Congress may prescribe the manner of proof and the effect of such acts. A final judgment rendered after due process therefore binds the forum state even when local policy differs.
A record or report of a public office is admissible if it sets forth factual findings from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. The exception applies in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases, subject to a trustworthiness determination. The proponent need not show that the declarant is unavailable.
Payment of the full debt entitles the mortgagor to a release or satisfaction piece from the mortgagee. The mortgagee must execute and deliver the document so that it can be recorded. Recording clears the public records and prevents subsequent purchasers from taking subject to the extinguished lien.
Equitable subrogation assigns the mortgage and the underlying obligation to the payor by operation of law rather than discharging them. The subrogee steps into the shoes of the original mortgagee and may enforce the lien against junior interests. A formal assignment may be recorded to give notice to third parties.
…were rendered, under the provision of the Constitution requiring that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State;" and the act of Congress providing for the mode of authenticating such acts, records, and proceedings, and declaring that, when thus…