Missouri § 511.780 Judgment — not conclusive, when — need not be recognized, when.

Missouri Statutes

§ 511.780 — Judgment — not conclusive, when — need not be recognized, when.

Missouri § 511.780

Title XXXVCIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS

Ch. 511Judgments

This text of Missouri § 511.780 (Judgment — not conclusive, when — need not be recognized, when.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 511.780 (2026).

Text

1. A foreign country judgment is not conclusive if:

(1)The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;

(2)The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or

(3)The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. 2. A foreign country judgment need not be recognized if:

(1)The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend;

(2)The judgment was obtained by fraud;

(3)The claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state;

(4)The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; (5

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. A foreign country judgment is not conclusive if:

(1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;

(2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or

(3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

2. A foreign country judgment need not be recognized if:

(1) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend;

(2) The judgment was obtained by fraud;

(3) The claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state;

(4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;

(5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court; or

(6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.