Opinion ID: 1262975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the public policy defense

Text: Panama argues that the Oklahoma court's assertion of jurisdiction over this case precluded the Brazilian court from simultaneously hearing the declaratory judgment action. It further asserts that the May 19, 1983 denial of Cities' general and special demurrers to its two theories of recovery is a final adjudication of the enforceability and validity of the 1965 agreement and operates to bar relitigation of that issue by the trial court. Recognizing the Brazilian judgment under these circumstances, Panama argues, would violate the public policy of Oklahoma. A foreign-country judgment may be denied recognition when it is contrary to the crucial public policies of the forum in which enforcement is requested. [22] This rule concedes that a state is not required to give effect to foreign judicial proceedings grounded on policies which do violence to its own fundamental interests. In the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Comment c, the drafters explain that the original claim must not be repugnant to the fundamental notions of what is decent and just in the State where enforcement is sought. [23] The standard for refusing to enforce judgments on public policy grounds is narrow in scope; the present trend has been to recognize this defense only in exceptional cases. [24] We find no basis here for invoking a public policy defense to preclude recognition of the Brazilian judgment. Under the doctrine of res judicata, [25] only terminal judicial rulings  whether they be judgments or postjudgment dispositions  are given preclusive effect. [26] A prejudgment order that overrules or sustains a demurrer to a pleading under the pre-1984 Oklahoma pleading regime does not bear the attributes of a complete and final disposition entitled to res judicata effect. [27] The principle of concurrent jurisdiction applies here. Where a similar controversy between the same parties is pending in separate jurisdictions, each forum is generally free to proceed to a judgment. The first final judgment would be res judicata as to issues that were or could have been raised in that action. [28] The important principles of comity compel deference and mutual respect for concurrent foreign proceedings. [29] Because the Brazilian court's final judgment was the first to be rendered, it is conclusive as to the underlying cause of action and will be accorded res judicata effect. Panama asserts that the Brazilian judgment dealt with Brazilian activities and entities that were parties neither to the 1965 letter nor to the Oklahoma litigation. This argument attempts to separate the facts of the two proceedings when they are inextricably entwined. It is immaterial that there were more parties in the Brazilian litigation than in the present action. [30] Res judicata applies to bar relitigation of Panama's claim because both proceedings arise out of the same set of events and the same parties in the Oklahoma litigation were also parties in the Brazilian lawsuit. Even if the Brazilian court had misperceived the choice-of-law doctrine, that would not create an infirmity in the court's power. The Brazilian judgment cannot be made vulnerable for legal error in the application of law; it is assailable, if at all, only for a defect in jurisdiction. [31]