---
title: U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1. Full Faith and Credit Clause
collection: code
id: us-const:art-iv-sec-1
cite_as: U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-1
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-1.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-1/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=138
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-3.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-2.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 82827
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-1.md?notes=all&start=11084
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: Relations Between States
---

# U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1. Full Faith and Credit Clause

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record 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 Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

## Cross References

Full faith and credit given to acts and proceedings of another state generally, § 1-3-9.

Full faith and credit to foreign country judgment, §§ 9-12-116, 9-12-131, 17-10-20.

Qualified credit given where alimony is in issue, §§ 19-6-26, 19-6-27.

Full faith and credit to orders of other states pursuant to Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 19-9-93.

Full faith and credit to a determination of paternity in another state, § 19-11-14.

Manner of proving Acts and proceedings of another state, § 24-9-922.

Full faith and credit to documents authenticated in another state, §§ 29-9-13.1, 53-5-33, 53-5-35, 53-5-43, and 53-11-11.

Full faith and credit to injunctions or the continuation of actions against a liquidator or insurer in another state, § 33-37-23.

## Law Reviews

For comment on Cooledge v. Casey, 58 Ga. App. 134, 198 S.E. 96 (1938), see 1 Ga. B.J. 47 (1939).

For comment discussing impact of full faith and credit clause upon divorce decrees, in light of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S. Ct. 207, 87 L. Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), see 5 Ga. B.J. 42 (1943).

For comment regarding impact of full faith and credit clause upon divorce decrees, in light of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S. Ct. 207, 87 L. Ed. 279 (1942), see 8 Ga. B.J. 228 (1945).

For comment on United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 67 S. Ct. 1355, 91 L. Ed. 1687 (1947), holding full faith and credit clause requires forum state to give effect to statute of limitations provision of fraternal benefit society, see 10 Ga. B.J. 378 (1948).

For comment on Azar v. Thomas, 206 Ga. 588, 57 S.E.2d 821 (1950), holding foreign decree of divorce may be collaterally attacked on grounds of fraud in its procurement and lack of jurisdiction, see 13 Ga. B.J. 334 (1951).

For comment on Watson v. Employer’s Liab. Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66, 75 S. Ct. 166, 99 L. Ed. 74 (1954), holding that statute allowing direct action by policy holder against insurer contrary to terms of the contract and requiring consent of the insurer to such action as a prerequisite of doing business in the state was not violative of the Constitution, see 17 Ga. B.J. 529 (1955).

For comment on Grandville-Smith v. Grandville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 75 S. Ct. 553, 99 L. Ed. 773 (1955), analyzing due process aspects of divorce jurisdiction statutes and full faith and credit problems with divorce decrees, see 4 J. of Pub. L. 206 (1955).

For comment on Tobin v. Tobin, 93 Ga. App. 568, 92 S.E.2d 304 (1956), holding that it is no defense to an alimony judgment in a divisible divorce that one party obtained the divorce subsequent to the judgment, see 20 Ga. B.J. 118 (1957).

For comment on McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S. Ct. 199, 2 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1957), holding that for a state to assert jurisdiction over a foreign insurance company it is sufficient for due process purposes if the contract has a substantial connection with that state, see 21 Ga. B.J. 113 (1958).

For article, “Some Constitutional Problems and the Conflict of Laws and Statutes of Limitation,” see 7 J. of Pub. L. 120 (1958).

For article discussing convergence of standards governing limits of state’s personal jurisdiction and applicability of state substantive law, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 282 (1960).

For article, “The Length of the Long Arm,” see 9 J. of Pub. L. 293 (1960).

For comment concerning full faith and credit ramifications of alimony decrees, in light of Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485, 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969), see 18 J. of Pub. L. 517 (1969).

For comment on Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485, 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969), as to enforcement of a foreign modification of a Georgia child support decree, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 675 (1970).

For comment on Whitaker v. Whitaker, 237 Ga. 895, 230 S.E.2d 486 (1976), see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 683 (1977).

For comment discussing extension of the minimum contacts concept to personal jurisdiction in divorce litigation in light of Whitaker v. Whitaker, 237 Ga. 895, 230 S.E.2d 486 (1976), see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1977).

For note, “Interstitial Lawmaking: Uniformity or Conformity?,” see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1235 (1981).

For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982).

For article discussing full faith and credit and federalism in choice of law questions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 709 (1983).

For article proposing an issue-by-issue analysis for resolution of choice of law questions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 731 (1983).

For article, “Enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause: Congress Legislates Finality for Child Custody Decrees,” see 1 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (1985).

For article, “Child Custody — Jurisdiction and Procedure,” see 35 Emory L.J. 291 (1986).

For annual survey of law of domestic relations, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1986).

For article, “Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860,” see 39 Emory L.J. 65 (1990).

For annual Eleventh Circuit survey of constitutional law — civil, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 1075 (1992).

For article, “Negotiating Tribal-State Full Faith and Credit Agreements: The Topology of the Negotiation and the Merits of the Question,” see 28 Ga. L. Rev. 365 (1994).

For article, “Jurisdictional Discrimination and Full Faith and Credit,” see 63 Emory L. J. 1023 (2014).

For article, “Faithful Parents: Choice of Childcare Parentage Laws,” see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 325 (2019).

## Decisions of Supreme Court Regardstate Rules of Evidence.

Aside from the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, Congress would have no power to prescribe rules of evidence for state courts. Edmonds v. State, 201 Ga. 108, 39 S.E.2d 24, 1946 Ga. LEXIS 432 (1946).

Full faith and credit clause does not apply to judgments of foreign countries. Cocke v. Truslow, 91 Ga. App. 645, 86 S.E.2d 686, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 831 (1955). tained within courts of the United

## Application Only to Judgments ob-States.

Comity alone could authorize recognition of a Mexican divorce. The general comity rule is that in a proper case the laws and judicial proceedings of one state will be enforced in another state, provided they do not involve anything immoral, contrary to public policy, or violative of the conscience of the state called upon to give them effect. It is fundamental that comity will not be applied where a divorce is obtained in a foreign state under circumstances which offend the public policy of this state as found in its Constitution and statutes and the decisions of its courts. Christopher v. Christopher, 198 Ga. 361, 31 S.E.2d 818, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 425 (1944).

## English Court Decree Accorded Conclusive Effect.

A decree of an English court of chancery, rendered when both parties were citizens of that realm, which adjudges that the defendant therein is liable to the plaintiff in a given sum of money, no question being raised as to the court having jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, and there being no suggestion of fraud in its rendition, will be given conclusive effect by the courts of this state. Coulborn v. Joseph, 195 Ga. 723, 25 S.E.2d 576, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 284 (1943).

Full faith and credit will be accorded a foreign decree only when properly proved. Benefield v. Harris, 143 Ga. App. 709, 240 S.E.2d 119, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2473 (1977).

## Manner of Proving Foreign Judgments Limited by Federal Statute.

A state cannot by merely failing or refusing to amend its code place greater restrictions upon a party seeking to rely on a foreign judgment than are imposed by the procedure enacted by Congress pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462, 119 S.E.2d 710, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 967 (1961).

## Copy of Foreign Judgment Only Required in Action Based Thereon.

To maintain an action based on judgment from another state, it is not necessary to show an authenticated copy of the record of the entire divorce and alimony proceedings; but a prima facie case is made by pleading and proving a properly authenticated copy of the judgment itself. Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675, 44 S.E.2d 136, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 614 (1947).

Certification of copy of foreign

## Judgment by Associate Judge Sufficient.

A copy of the judgment of a court of a sister state attested by the clerk of such court with a certificate by one of the judges of the court that such attestation is in due form is sufficient to authorize its admission in evidence even though the judge signing the certificate was not the chief or presiding judge of such court. Peeples v. Peeples, 103 Ga. App. 462, 119 S.E.2d 710, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 967 (1961).

Full faith and credit clause does not compel state to adopt any particular set of rules of conflict of laws; it merely sets certain minimum requirements which each state must observe when asked to apply the law of a sister state. Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 39, 85 S. Ct. 769, 13 L. Ed. 2d 641, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1731 (1965).

Mandatory judicial recognition of laws and legal proceedings of sister

## States.

The courts of this state must judicially recognize the laws of the several states, as published by authority, without proof, and properly authenticated judicial proceedings of a sister state are entitled to the same full faith and credit as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from which they are taken. Kelly v. Kelly, 115 Ga. App. 700, 155 S.E.2d 732, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1212 (1967).

Foreign judgment entitled to same

## Effect as Foreign Jurisdiction Gives It.

— Lawfully obtained judgments of the court of one state, when sued on or pleaded or introduced in evidence in another state are entitled to receive the same full faith, credit, and respect that they are accorded in the state where rendered. Earley v. Earley, 165 Ga. App. 483, 300 S.E.2d 814, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1918 (1983).

Foreign judgment subject to attack for lack of jurisdiction or fraud only. — Under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution a judg-General Consideration (Cont’d) ment of a foreign court will be enforced by the courts of this state unless it is shown that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction of the person or subject matter or that the judgment was procured by fraud. Earley v. Earley, 165 Ga. App. 483, 300 S.E.2d 814, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1918 (1983).

Ex parte application for letters of

## Administration.

Georgia court was not required to give full faith and credit to any findings or presumptions made by a New Jersey court on the issue of domicile in a proceeding which amounted to no more than an ex parte application for letters of administration of an estate. Wilson v. Willard, 183 Ga. App. 204, 358 S.E.2d 859, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2693 (1987).

Contractual provision that is not valid where made does not become part of the contract between the parties. GECC v. Home Indem. Co., 168 Ga. App. 344, 309 S.E.2d 152, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 3398 (1983).

Conviction not precluded based on


> The printed notes continue for 82,827 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iv-sec-1.md?notes=all&start=11084