Document: 451 U.S. 493 101 S.Ct. 1889 68 L.Ed.2d 392 Leah Lynn Parrish WEBB, Petitioner,v.James Thomas WEBB. No. 79-6853. Argued March 23, 1981. Decided May 18, Syllabus This case involves a custody dispute between the mother (petitioner) and father (respondent) of minor child. A Florida state court awarded to petitioner. In subsequently filed action, Georgia respondent, Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner then petition for certiorari in this Court, raising question whether Art. IV, § 1, Federal Constitution required give full faith credit decree, was granted. Held: Where record discloses that petitioner failed raise her federal claim courts rule on issue, is without jurisdiction decide accordingly writ dismissed. Pp. 494-502. Certiorari Reported below: 245 Ga. 650, 266 S.E.2d 463. Mary R. Carden, Gainesville, Ga., Manley F. Brown, Macon, respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 Their has reached because have conflicting results assigning 2 On 8, 1979, petitioner, mother, an action seeking son. April entered judgment granting custody. father, also June 21, he by court. The affirmed decision. 3 just one question: "Does Article United States Constitution, demand . decree rendered immediately prior Georgia's acceptance unqualified jurisdiction?" alleged she had properly raised courts. Respondent brief opposition which argued Full Faith Credit Clause must way "best interests" child proceeding.1 At no point his did respondent petitioner's contention issue been below, nor contend there some other jurisdictional bar would prevent from reaching petition. 4 Under our Rule 19.1, we longer require, fact disfavor, filing lower certiorari. We are, therefore, largely dependent upon assertions made parties as what will demonstrate concerning manner below. Because forthrightly asserted assertion not disputed assumed be problem petition, granted certiorari.2 449 819, 70, 66 21. It become clear, however, below are case. therefore dismiss merits. 5 comes court, relevant statute 28 U.S.C. 1257. As applied circumstances case, requires "specially set up or claimed under States" right now seeks enforce. 1257(3). Similarly 21.1(h) "specify stage proceedings, both first instance appellate at questions sought reviewed were raised; method them they passed court." Our examination convinces us preserve 6 note nowhere any mentioned, let alone expressly upon. Nor mentioned dissenting frequently stated when "the highest pass question, it omission due want proper presentation courts, unless aggrieved party can affirmatively show contrary." Street v. New York, 394 576, 582, 89 1354, 1360, 22 572 (1969); see Fuller Oregon, 417 40, 50, n. 11, 94 2116, 2123, 40 642 (1974); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 290, 3, 93 1038, 1043, 35 297 (1973); Bailey Anderson, 326 203, 206-207, 66, 68, 90 L.Ed. (1945). argues rebuts assumption demonstrates question. Therefore, view State understood having implicitly rejected claim. 7 Although use phrase "full credit" several points proceedings cite cases relying Constitution. amended motion trial added following contention: "Plaintiff herein continues act contrary order Superior Berrine County, September 22, 1977, acting violation circuit Alachua should accorded pursuant law, above." Also, enumeration errors [c]ourt erred failing find valid pending such credit, enforce ordering Plaintiff comply with all respects, action."3 8 long-settled re-examine final arise only if whole shows either clear implication adequately presented system. York ex rel. Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 67, 49 61, 73 184 (1928); Oxley Stave Co. Butler 166 648, 655, 17 709, 711, 41 1149 (1897). since clause, doubt above references presented. See Tr. Oral Arg. 4. unpersuaded. fact, far more likely referring law. 9 concern primarily requirements Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act: "This calls interpretation certain provisions Act, Code Ann. 74-501 et seq." That Act adopted Florida. Section 74-514 codified Georgia, states: 10 "The shall recognize initial modification another statutory substantially accordance Chapter, factual meeting standards so long modified similar those Chapter." Ga.Code (1979). 11 Interpreting meaning section obviously matter but litigant could plausibly refer requirement. supports parties. 12 hearing, discussed invoke Rather, make aware previous violated terms "[W]hile going Florida, [respondent] turned around here, never informed here done it; disclosures he's supposed law [the Act], response whatsoever." 8. briefs similarly application facts noted above, apparently believe Finally, rehearing before court's failure reach claim, contends error. She did, argue error Act.4 13 cannot conclude presents state-court proceedings. Thus, confront same arose Cardinale Louisiana, 437, 438, 1161, 1162, 398 (1969): "Although consider sole raised, preserved, below." Citing history cases, "[t]he consistently refused constitutional issues time review decisions." Ibid. occasions repeat then, Tacon Arizona, 351, 352, 998, 999, 346 Moore Illinois, 408 786, 799, 92 2562, 2570, 33 706 (1972); Stanley 405 645, 658, 10, 1208, 1216, 31 551 Hill California, 401 797, 91 1106, 484 (1971); University California Regents Bakke, 438 265, 283, 98 2733, 2744, 57 750 (1978) (opinion POWELL, J.), reason deviate now. 14 appropriate emphasize again, supra, U.S., 439, S.Ct., 1163, powerful policy considerations underlying requirement own challenge official These strongly indicate apply general principle sufficient rigor reasonably entertain where clearly 15 place, although sovereign entities, bound along their officials, including judges, Principles comity system require afforded opportunity perform duty, includes responding attacks authority based or, litigation wholly private, construing applying applicable requirements. elsewhere observed, principal 16 "a respect functions, recognition entire country Union separate governments, continuance belief National Government fare best institutions left free functions ways." Younger Harris, 37, 44, 746, 750, 27 669 (1971). stands behind "properly-raised-federal-question" doctrine exhaustion-of-state-remedies habeas corpus claims prisoners. described latter "federal-state comity," Picard Connor, 404 270, 275, 509, 512, 30 (1971), its function reflecting 18 " 'an accommodation designed "opportunity correct" violations prisoners' rights.' adhered policy, 'it unseemly dual government district upset conviction correct violation.' (citations omitted). 19 There very practical reasons insisting affords develop necessary adjudicating issue. permits exercise authority, one, do least extent, construe statutes avoid obviate challenges vagueness overbreadth. insures independent adequate grounds pretermit identified acted authoritative manner. present tribunals instance, adjudicated dispose most instances, supported may well giving plenary consideration workload, substantial matter. 20 For these reasons, we, litigants bring take care rules. uncertainty expenditure much effort precisely rely, insisted inflexible specificity. inevitable result times differences fair address here.5 minimum, apprised nature substance Otherwise, sufficiently sure, whose being addressed later actually silently resolved against appellant 21 Accordingly, dismissed jurisdiction. So ordered. 23 whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. 24 I agree join Court's understanding, broad statements taken departing rule, reaffirmed Term, plain unchallenged fundamental unfairness. Wood 450 261, 5, 1097, 1100, 67 220 (1981). also, Vachon Hampshire, 414 478, 664, 38 666 (1974) (finding appeal court). 25 MARSHALL, part. 26 share concerns careful pleadings. Nonetheless, justifies apparent conclusion who fails exact location provision neglected ground. attempts acknowledges, "did 'full credit' Ante, 496. Indeed, complaint decision "should reiterated tries translate words identical language instead mention three words, "full," "faith," "credit." (1979), Act. governs allocation enacted fail how interests improved pleadings served strained refusal ascribe meaning. remains true import remand rather than leave place. purely subject Because—as infra—the better practice part call devoted sentence issue: "In circumstances, Appellant asserts, recognized credit." Brief 3. record, even suffice establish Even if, might still procedural ground barring 45 Rules "Any enumerated argument citation deemed abandoned." 24-4545 (Supp.1980). held include citations support Watts Mitchell, 227 247, 179 774 discuss demonstrated grounded rule. Since presented, need about See, e. g., (1981); Boynton Virginia, 364 454, 81 182, 206 (1960); (1928).

Category: 8