University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series


James L. Parks

Document Type



The American Law Institute in its Restatement of the Conflict of Laws has codified the rules governing jurisdiction of a court to grant a divorce, where no personal jurisdiction of the defendant is obtained, as follows: "A state cannot exercise through its courts jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of spouses of whom one is domiciled within the state and the other is domiciled outside the state, unless the spouse who is not domiciled in the state (a) has permitted the other spouse to acquire a separate home; or by his misconduct has ceased to have the right to object to the acquisition of such separate home;..."I It is supposed that a divorce granted under the conditions mentioned is intended to be one that will be entitled to full faith and credit in every state of the Union under the federal constitution. The question, therefore, is exclusively one of federal constitutional law. It will be the purpose of this paper to consider the present state of the federal authorities and to determine whether the Restatement accurately embodies within its terms the rules of these decisions. So far as the writer knows, there are only three federal Supreme Court decisions dealing with this important problem: Atherton v. Itherton, Haddock v. Haddock, and Thompson v. Thompson.

Included in

Family Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.