Opinion ID: 2335393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The California judgment falls within the penal exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause set forth in Huntington v. Attrill

Text: On appeal, Oakland argues that the district court erred when it relied upon Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892), to set aside the California judgment. Oakland contends that Huntington is a relic of questionable authority, and that its enforcement is contrary to the purpose of the UEFJA, codified in Nevada at NRS 17.330 through 17.400, which is to provide a speedy and economical method to enforce foreign judgments and to make uniform the laws of the states that enact it. As a result, Oakland argues, citing Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573, 747 P.2d 230, 232 (1987), that the district court erred in setting aside the judgment because the only defenses available to Desert Outdoor under the UEFJA are those that a judgment debtor may constitutionally raise under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and which are directed to the validity of the foreign judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Oakland's contentions and conclude that the penal exception set forth in Huntington warrants against enforcement of the California judgment in Nevada.