Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Williams v. State of North Carolina [II]

United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 226 (1945)


Facts

In Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) (Williams I), the United States Supreme Court held that North Carolina (plaintiff) could not refuse to recognize divorce decrees issued in Nevada on the grounds of an offense to North Carolina public policy. As set forth in the Court’s opinion in Williams I, the issue arose when North Carolina prosecuted Mr. Williams (defendant) and Ms. Hendrix (defendant) for bigamy. They were each married to other people and domiciled in North Carolina when they traveled to Nevada, procured divorces there, married each other there, and then returned to North Carolina. The Court concluded that the Nevada divorce decrees were entitled to full faith and credit because the substituted service received by the spouses of Williams and Hendrix met due process and because North Carolina was not challenging the findings that Williams and Hendrix met Nevada’s bona fide domicil requirement. Williams I resulted in a retrial of Williams and Hendrix. This time, North Carolina argued that Williams and Hendrix had not met the domicil requirement necessary for Nevada to have jurisdiction. The jury was informed that Nevada’s finding of sufficient domicil was prima facie, but not necessarily compelling, evidence that the condition was met. The jury could, therefore, reject the Nevada finding if there was evidence to the contrary. The jury found that Williams and Hendrix never abandoned their North Carolina domicil and, consequently, did not satisfy the Nevada domicil requirement for jurisdiction. Williams and Hendrix were convicted of bigamy. They petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Frankfurter, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Murphy, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Rutledge, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.