Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An adjective describing activity, relations, or movement occurring between or among two or more states. The term identifies connections that cross state lines and trigger constitutional or statutory rules governing multi-state dealings.
Ilana Isaacs moves from State A to State B and applies for welfare benefits immediately upon arrival. State B denies the application under a one-year residency rule aimed at protecting its treasury. The denial triggers review under the constitutional right to interstate movement.
Iain Irons obtains a child-support order in State A. He later asks a tribunal in State B to enforce the order as the controlling order that has not been modified. State B's tribunal may serve as an initiating tribunal under the uniform act.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Isabella Ingram files a parentage action in State A against a nonresident father. The court determines that the conditions of the state's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act section 201 are satisfied. The court may therefore exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident.
State A imposes a surcharge on out-of-state nuclear waste under an express congressional authorization. Imperial Motors ships waste across state lines and pays the surcharge. The authorization prevents a dormant commerce clause challenge.
India Inoue registers a New York child-support order in North Carolina. The child turns eighteen, the age of emancipation in North Carolina. The order remains enforceable until the child reaches twenty-one under New York law.
Island Manufacturing sells a vehicle in State A that was manufactured with a defect known only to the company. A purchaser in State B sues and obtains punitive damages based on conduct occurring entirely in State A. The award implicates limits on one state's power to regulate conduct in another.
The term identifies movement across state lines that triggers the constitutional right to travel. States may not impose durational residency rules to deter indigent persons from entering and claiming benefits.
A tribunal may enforce the order when it is the controlling order and has not been modified by a tribunal of another state that assumed jurisdiction under the uniform act.
No. Lack of jurisdiction over one individual does not preclude adjudication that binds another individual when the court has jurisdiction over that person.
Congress may expressly authorize states to discriminate in specified ways, such as imposing surcharges on out-of-state nuclear waste, without violating the dormant commerce clause.
The law of the issuing jurisdiction governs the nature and duration of the obligation, including the age of emancipation.
…in the federal court. Compare Gardner v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. , 150 U.S. 349; Harrison v. Foley , 206 Fed. 57 (C.C.A. 8); Interstate Realty & Inv. Co. v. Bibb County , 293 Fed. 721 (C.C.A. 5); see Mills, supra note 4, at 52. [^maj-10]: For a recent survey of the scope of the doctrine, see Sharp & Brennan, The…