State may be sued in another state court

Download 131.46 Kb.
Size131.46 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5


U.S. Supreme Court

NEVADA v. HALL, 440 U.S. 410 (1979)

440 U.S. 410


No. 77-1337.

Argued November 7, 1978
Decided March 5, 1979

Respondents, California residents, brought this suit in a California court for damages against petitioner State of Nevada and others for injuries respondents sustained when a Nevada-owned vehicle on official business collided on a California highway with a vehicle occupied by respondents. After the California Supreme Court, reversing the trial court, held Nevada amenable to suit in the California courts, Nevada, on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution, unsuccessfully invoked a Nevada statute limiting to $25,000 any tort award against the State pursuant to its statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. Following trial, damages were awarded respondents for $1,150,000, and the judgment in their favor was affirmed on appeal. Held: A State is not constitutionally immune from suit in the courts of another State. Pp. 414-427.

(a) The doctrine that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent does not support a claim of immunity in another sovereign's courts. Pp. 414-418.

(b) The need for constitutional protection against one State's being sued in the courts of another State was not discussed by the Framers, and nothing in Art. III authorizing the judicial power of the United States or in the Eleventh Amendment limitation on that power provides any basis, explicit or implicit, for this Court to limit the judicial powers that California has exercised in this case. Pp. 418-421.

(c) The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493 . Here California, which has provided by statute for jurisdiction in its courts over residents and nonresidents alike to allow those negligently injured on its highways to secure full compensation for their injuries in California courts, is not required to surrender jurisdiction to Nevada or to limit respondents' recovery to the $25,000 Nevada statutory maximum. Pp. 421-424.

(d) The specific limitations that certain constitutional provisions such as Art. I, 8, and Art. IV, 2, place upon the sovereignty of the States do not imply that any one State's immunity from suit in the courts of [440 U.S. 410, 411]   another State is anything more than a matter of comity, and nothing in the Constitution authorizes or obligates this Court to frustrate California's policy of fully compensating those negligently injured on its highways. Pp. 424-427.

74 Cal. App. 3d 280, 141 Cal. Rptr. 439, affirmed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 427. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., joined, post, p. 432.

Michael W. Dyer, Deputy Attorney General of Nevada, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert Frank List, Attorney General, and James H. Thompson, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

Everett P. Rowe argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this tort action arising out of an automobile collision in California, a California court has entered a judgment against the State of Nevada that Nevada's own courts could not have entered. We granted certiorari to decide whether federal law prohibits the California courts from entering such a judgment or, indeed, from asserting any jurisdiction over another sovereign State.

The respondents are California residents. They suffered severe injuries in an automobile collision on a California highway on May 13, 1968. The driver of the other vehicle, an employee of the University of Nevada, was killed in the collision. It is conceded that he was driving a car owned by the State, that he was engaged in official business, and that the University is an instrumentality of the State itself.

Respondents filed this suit for damages in the Superior Court for the city of San Francisco, naming the administrator [440 U.S. 410, 412]   of the driver's estate, the University, and the State of Nevada as defendants. Process was served on the State and the University pursuant to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code authorizing service of process on nonresident motorists. 1 The trial court granted a motion to quash service on the State, but its order was reversed on appeal. The California Supreme Court held, as a matter of California law, that the State of Nevada was amenable to suit in California courts and remanded the case for trial. Hall v. University of Nevada, 8 Cal. 3d 522, 503 P.2d 1363. We denied certiorari. 414 U.S. 820 .

On remand, Nevada filed a pretrial motion to limit the amount of damages that might be recovered. A Nevada statute places a limit of $25,000 on any award in a tort action against the State pursuant to its statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. 2 Nevada argued that the Full Faith and Credit [440 U.S. 410, 413]   Clause of the United States Constitution 3 required the California courts to enforce that statute. Nevada's motion was denied, and the case went to trial.

The jury concluded that the Nevada driver was negligent and awarded damages of $1,150,000. 4 The Superior Court entered judgment on the verdict and the Court of Appeal affirmed. After the California Supreme Court denied review, [440 U.S. 410, 414]   the State of Nevada and its University successfully sought a writ of certiorari. 436 U.S. 925 .

Despite its importance, the question whether a State may claim immunity from suit in the courts of another State has never been addressed by this Court. The question is not expressly answered by any provision of the Constitution; Nevada argues that it is implicitly answered by reference to the common understanding that no sovereign is amenable to suit without its consent - an understanding prevalent when the Constitution was framed and repeatedly reflected in this Court's opinions. In order to determine whether that understanding is embodied in the Constitution, as Nevada claims, 5 it is necessary to consider (1) the source and scope of the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) the impact of the doctrine on the framing of the Constitution; (3) the Full Faith and Credit Clause; and (4) other aspects of the Constitution that qualify the sovereignty of the several States.

Directory: lawnotes -> work-in-progress
work-in-progress -> Creighton law review, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821 school of law
work-in-progress -> Political rights and sovereignty
work-in-progress -> Did Paul claim to be a citizen of Rome?
work-in-progress -> Due to the critical nature of the topics covered, several important pictures are included. To view these pictures in ms outlook or Outlook Express, click the bar below the email Subject line which says Click here to download pictures
work-in-progress -> Constitutional rights
work-in-progress -> Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House
work-in-progress -> Coles County Illinois Judge Violates Law
work-in-progress -> Will Homeland Obscurity jail us for noticing what’s in front of our eyes? Cats and the Dictionary Conspiracy
work-in-progress -> Political rights and sovereignty

Download 131.46 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page