# Hooks v. Hooks

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 23, 1985 · 771 F.2d 935

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8934294

## Case

- **Full name:** Marsha HOOKS v. Stephen R. HOOKS, Bill Hooks, Charlotte Hooks, Gene Mullins, Don Churchill, Lt. Robbie Webb, Patrolman Bob Gardner, Donna Wheeler, Susan Dunn, Maxiene Stinnett and Ken Cornett
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 23, 1985
- **Citations:** 771 F.2d 935
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wellford
- **Judges:** Circujt, Kennedy, Weick, Wellford
- **Cited by:** 554 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8934294

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a consent order entered by a state court in Texas requiring the dismissal of an action in a United States District Court in Tennessee must be accorded full faith and credit in the federal forum
- Recognizing the proposition that under § 1738 “full faith and credit will not be accorded state court judgments regular on their face, where to do so would defeat a vital or overriding federal interest.”
- recognizing that turning child over to someone who will abscond with the child outside of the jurisdiction of the court constitutes a de facto deprivation of post-deprivation remedy
- holding that “full faith and credit extends to state court determinations of subject matter jurisdiction over a controversy, as well as the merits of the controversy itself.”
- concluding that, “[i]n effect, plaintiff allege[d] the existence of two separate conspiracies” because actions were not part of a single plan

## Opinion text

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately to express my doubt about the necessity of any discussion regarding personal jurisdiction over defendant Churchill. Because we hold that there is no federal claim against Churchill, I would hold we lack subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claim against him. The rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 , 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), requiring complete diversity, precludes application of diversity jurisdiction. See C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 95 (3d ed. 1976). Moreover, I doubt seriously that the state claim against Churchill and the federal claim against the Tennessee defendants can be said to arise from a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ so as to support any form of “pendent party” jurisdiction, see Wright, supra at 76, assuming that such a theory would be applied in this circuit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8934294. Public record. Not legal advice.