Short answer. No. Rule 8, Section 6 provides that in pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, tribunal, board, or officer, it is sufficient to simply aver the judgment or decision, without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it, though an authenticated copy must be attached to the pleading.

What the law says

In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.

Rule 8, Section 6 — Judgment. Read the full provision →

What pleading a judgment would otherwise require

Ordinarily, a party alleging a fact in a pleading has to plead the ultimate facts supporting it, which could easily be read to mean that a party relying on someone else's judgment would need to plead the facts establishing that the issuing court or tribunal actually had jurisdiction — the parties involved, the subject matter, service of process, and so on. Doing that for every judgment relied upon would turn a simple pleading into a miniature relitigation of the earlier case's procedural history, long before the merits of the present case are even reached.

The shortcut Rule 8, Section 6 provides

This section removes that burden specifically for judgments and decisions. A party may simply aver — state as a fact — that a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or board or officer rendered a particular judgment or decision, without pleading the underlying facts that would establish that body's jurisdiction to have rendered it. The presumption built into ordinary pleading practice is that a judgment issued by a body purporting to have authority to issue it is regular unless and until the opposing party actually challenges that jurisdiction, rather than requiring the pleader to prove it upfront.

The one thing that is still required

The relief from pleading jurisdictional facts comes with a documentary condition attached: an authenticated copy of the judgment or decision must be attached to the pleading. That requirement anchors the shortcut to something concrete — the court and the opposing party can see exactly what judgment is being relied upon, even though the pleader does not have to narrate how the issuing body came to have authority over the matter. If the opposing party wants to contest that the judgment was validly issued, the burden shifts to them to raise and prove the jurisdictional defect, rather than sitting with the party pleading the judgment from the outset.

Who actually carries the jurisdictional question

This section shifts the practical burden rather than eliminating the issue entirely: a defendant who believes the judgment being pleaded came from a court or tribunal that lacked authority to issue it must raise that defect affirmatively, typically as a defense in the answer, rather than waiting for the plaintiff to have proven jurisdiction as part of the case-in-chief. If that challenge is never raised, the judgment's regularity is effectively taken as established for purposes of the pleadings. A plaintiff relying on a foreign judgment should still be ready to establish its authenticity and, if contested, its jurisdictional basis, since the shortcut applies to what must be pleaded, not to what must ultimately be proven if the point is disputed.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.