Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): not domiciled or resident in the foreign country ... has never been recognized in any state in the United States, and has been universally rejected.” Related to these arguments is her contention that COL 35 is wrong. 1.Dominican Decree not entitled to pro forma recognition In COL 35, the family court found: 35. The [Dominican] Decree is recognized by the [family court] under the principle of comity. Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees’ Be 049, 1051 (1985) (stating United States courts will not generally recognize judgment of divorce granted by court of foreign nation unless, by standards of jurisdiction in which recognition is sought, at least one spouse was good-faith domiciliary in foreign nation at time decree was rendered); Mayer v. Mayer, 66 N.C.App. 522, 311 S.E.2d 659, 664 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Basiouny, 445 So.2d at 919 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce (B) holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it is void (C) holding that dominican court had insufficient jurisdiction to issue divorce decree to two persons domiciled in north carolina and citing to annot 13 alr3d 1419 stating that the great weight of authority in this country is that divorces granted in foreign countries to persons who are domiciliaries of the united states are not valid and enforceable (D) holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause (E) holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties
Output (English): holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties