This chapter does not give full coverage of US law on the recognition and enforcement of judgments: it merely picks out certain highlights that will be of interest to lawyers in other countries.

Reciprocity

In 1895, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Hilton v. Guyot, a case on the recognition of a French judgment. Although it applied general commonlaw principles, it held that reciprocity was a requirement. At the time, American judgments could be reviewed on the merits in France (révision au fond); so the Supreme Court said that French judgments would not be given conclusive effect in the United States.

In Hilton, the federal courts had jurisdiction on diversity grounds. Some forty years after it was decided, the Supreme Court held that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the law, including the conflict of laws, of the state in which they are sitting. Since Hilton, most federal courts have held that, in the absence of a federal statute, a treaty or some other basis – for example, Admiralty – for federal jurisdiction, recognition of foreign-country judgments is a matter for state law. Most state courts have taken the view that Hilton is not binding on them. Reciprocity has been generally rejected by both state and federal courts.