 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Solomon v. Supreme Court of Florida9/12/2002
, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). The Court in Hall held that the Constitution does not prohibit one state's courts from asserting jurisdiction over another sovereign state. Id. at 420-21. "Immunity in the courts of another sovereign must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity." Qasim v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 455 A.2d 904, 906 (D.C. 1983) (quoting Hall, supra, 440 U.S. at 416). Indeed, the Supreme Court stated in Hall, supra at 425, that it "has presumed that the States intended to adopt policies of broad comity toward one another." That presumption applies equally to the District of Columbia. Judicial comity is defined as " he principle in accordance with which the courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and/ judicial decisions of another, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and respect." Black's Law Dictionary 267 (6th ed. 1990).
In Hall, the California Supreme Court held that a California state court may, without the defendant's consent, take in personam jurisdiction over the State of Nevada. In that case, plaintiffs filed suit in the San Francisco Superior Court to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging that the injuries resulted from a collision in California between their automobile and a car owned by the University and State of Nevada, and operated by their agent acting within the scope of his employment. Hall v. University of Nevada, 503 P.2d 1363, 1364 (Cal. 1972). There, the court held that "sister states who engage in activities within California are subject to our laws with respect to those activities and are subject to suit in California courts with respect to those activities." Id.
Because states are increasingly engaged in activities which carry them beyond their borders, the issue raised in the present case will arise at frequent intervals. However, we have not had occasion to consider whether on the basis of comity our courts should respect another state's statutorily imposed immunity in the exercise of disciplinary functions. Unless we elect to extend such a statute using the doctrine of comity, "the statute generally would be without force beyond the jurisdiction of the enacting state." Schoberlein, supra, 544 N.E.2d at 285.
Comity principles ensure that foreign law that does not conflict with the law of the forum state may be applied to foster cooperation between sister jurisdictions. Hall, supra, 440 U.S. at 416. Addressing the laws of the District of Columbia, we note that this jurisdiction generally provides immunity to all its bar disciplinary participants. D.C. App. R. XI, ยง 19 (a).
Appellant has not provided any evidence that the members of the Florida Board acted outside the scope of their official duties when they forwarded their findings to the Florida Supreme Court. "In the area of defamation, the rule in Florida is that words spoken or written by public servants in judicial, legislative, and executive activities are protected by absolute privilege from liability for defamation." Mueller, supra, 390 So. 2d at 451 (citing McNayr v. Kelly, 184 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1966) (other citations omitted)). Here, each of the Board members was acting on behalf of the Florida judiciary when they made statements about appellant in the District of Columbia that appellant had violated the rules of professional conduct. We see no reason why Florida's rule should not apply in the present case. We, like the Florida Supreme Court, have expressed concern, as a matter of policy, with the conduct of lawyers when their representation of clients fails to meet minimum requirem
Page 1 2 3 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|