“If the court which rendered the judgment has, with the parties before it, expressly passed upon the jurisdictional question in the case, or had opportunity to do so because the parties could have raised the question, that question is res judicata, and is therefore not subject to collateral attack in the state in which the judgment is sued on. This has been called the ‘bootstrap doctrine,’ the idea being that a court which initially had no jurisdiction can when the issue is litigated lift itself into jurisdiction by its own incorrect but conclusive finding that it does have jurisdiction.” Robert A. Leflar, American Conflicts Law § 79, at 159 (3d ed. 1977).
bootstrap doctrine
bootstrap doctrine. Conflict of laws. The doctrine that forecloses collateral attack on the jurisdiction of another state’s court that has rendered final judgment. • The doctrine applies when a court in an earlier case has taken jurisdiction over a person, over status, or over land. It is based on the principle that under res judicata, the parties are bound by the judgment, whether the issue was the court’s jurisdiction or something else. The bootstrap doctrine, however, cannot give effectiveness to a judgment by a court that had no subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, parties cannot, by appearing before a state court, “bootstrap” that court into having jurisdiction over a federal matter. [Cases: Judgment 818. C.J.S. Judgments § 986.]
