375 U.S. 106 (1963)
In 1956 the petitioners brought an action against the respondent in a Nebraska court to quiet title to bottom land situated on the Missouri River.1
The main channel of that river forms the boundary between the States of Nebraska and Missouri.2 Whether the land was Nebraska land depended entirely upon a factual question whether a shift in the river's course had been caused by avulsion or accretion.3
The respondent appeared in the Nebraska court and through counsel fully litigated the issues, explicitly contesting the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy.4 After a hearing the court found the issues in favor of the petitioners and ordered that title to the land be quieted in them.5
The respondent appealed, and the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the judgment after a trial de novo on the record made in the lower court.6 The State Supreme Court specifically found that the rule of avulsion was applicable, that the land in question was in Nebraska, that the Nebraska courts therefore had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation, and that title to the land was in the petitioners.7 The respondent did not petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to review that judgment.8
Two months later the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners in a Missouri court to quiet title to the same land.9 Her complaint alleged that the land was in Missouri.10 The suit was removed to a Federal District Court by reason of diversity of citizenship.11
The District Court after hearing evidence expressed the view that the land was in Missouri, but held that all the issues had been adjudicated and determined in the Nebraska litigation.12 The Court of Appeals reversed.13 It held that the District Court was not required to give full faith and credit to the Nebraska judgment.14 Normal res judicata principles were not applicable because the controversy involved land.15 A court in Missouri was therefore free to retry the question of the Nebraska court's jurisdiction over the subject matter.16 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider a question important to the administration of justice in the federal system.17
Whether a Nebraska judgment quieting title to land is entitled to full faith and credit in a subsequent federal proceeding in Missouri when the Nebraska court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the land?18
The constitutional command of full faith and credit requires that judicial proceedings shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.19 Full faith and credit generally requires every State to give to a judgment at least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State which rendered it.20 A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit even as to questions of jurisdiction when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.21
Yes. The respondent fully litigated the jurisdictional question in the Nebraska courts by appearing and contesting subject matter jurisdiction.22 The Nebraska Supreme Court finally decided that the land was in Nebraska and that it had jurisdiction over the controversy.23 The Nebraska judgment quieting title is therefore entitled to full faith and credit in the subsequent federal proceeding in Missouri.24
The Nebraska judgment quieting title to the land is entitled to full faith and credit in the subsequent federal proceeding in Missouri.25
Whether the question of the Nebraska court's jurisdiction over the subject matter was fully and fairly litigated and finally decided so as to preclude relitigation in the Missouri federal court?26
A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit even as to questions of jurisdiction when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment. The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues, as well to jurisdiction of the subject matter as of the parties.27
Yes. The respondent appeared in the Nebraska court and through counsel fully litigated the issues, explicitly contesting the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy.28 After a hearing the Nebraska trial court found the issues in favor of the petitioners.29 The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed after a trial de novo, specifically finding that the land was in Nebraska and that the Nebraska courts had jurisdiction of the subject matter.30
The respondent did not seek further review.31 These facts establish that the jurisdictional question was fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in Nebraska, precluding relitigation in the Missouri federal court under the rule of jurisdictional finality.32
The question of the Nebraska court's jurisdiction over the subject matter was fully and fairly litigated and finally decided so as to preclude relitigation in the Missouri federal court.33
Whether an exception to jurisdictional finality applies when the underlying dispute concerns title to real property located on a state boundary?34
The general rule of finality of jurisdictional determinations applies to cases involving real property because the location of land is a matter to be resolved by judicial determination, and once the matter has been fully litigated and judicially determined it cannot be retried in another State in litigation between the same parties.35
No. Although courts of one State are without jurisdiction directly to affect title to land in other States, the location of land is a matter to be resolved by judicial determination just as domicile is in a divorce action.36 The Nebraska courts fully litigated and decided the location of the land and their own jurisdiction.37 No overriding considerations such as federal pre-emption or sovereign immunity are present.38 Therefore no exception to jurisdictional finality applies merely because the dispute concerns title to real property on a state boundary.39
No exception to jurisdictional finality applies when the underlying dispute concerns title to real property located on a state boundary.40
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black concurs in the reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment.41 He emphasizes that neither State has power to make a determination binding on the other as to which State the land is in under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a).42
In the private action the Nebraska Supreme Court held the disputed tract is in Nebraska.43 Justice Black joins the reversal with the understanding that the decision does not determine whether the respondent would continue to be bound by the Nebraska judgment should it later be authoritatively decided in an original proceeding between the States in this Court or by a compact between the two States under Article I, Section 10, that the disputed tract is in Missouri.44 This reservation leaves open future interstate resolution of the boundary question.45