9 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt: Questions of Reciprocal Sovereign Immunity – and the Continued Force of Nevada v. Hall, by Jeffrey W. Stempel (Part I)

    Hamilton and Griffin on RightsJeffrey StempelDecember 28, 2015

    See 335 P.3d at 153. The Tax Board sought certiorari, which was granted as to the following questions:Whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts.Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled.Nevada v. Hall Under AttackIronically (as noted by Justice Ginsburg during oral argument), Nevada v. Hall involved California’s own rejection of Nevada’s immunity. The case involved a badly injured California minor and his less injured mother suing Nevada in California state court after being negligently hit by a State of Nevada employee driving in California.

  2. Nevada v. Hall – and California — Dodge Bullets: The Supreme Court Rules that the Full Faith and Credit Clause Requires a Regime of Sovereign Immunity Symmetry Between the States in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, by Jeffrey W. Stempel

    Hamilton and Griffin on RightsApril 27, 2016

    035(1)(statutory maximum of $50,000 prior to 2007; $100,000 currently). The Board also argue for the overruling of Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent.Nevada v. Hall Survives — BarelyRegarding Hall, the Court was “equally divided on this question” and “consequently affirm[s] the Nevada courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over California.” See id.

  3. The Supreme Court - June 28, 2018

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeJune 29, 2018

    a state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted when the FDA rejected the drug manufacturer’s proposal to warn about the risk after being provided with the relevant scientific data; or whether such a case must go to a jury for conjecture as to why the FDA rejected the proposed warning.Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532: Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646: Whether the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.Nieves v. Bartlett, No. 17-1174: Whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299: Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into another State’s courts without its consent, should be overruled.

  4. Supreme Court Update: Harris V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (14-232), Franchise Tax Board Of California V. Hyatt) 14-1175, Welch V. United States (15-6418), Molina-Martinez V. United States (14-8913) And Hughes V. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (14-614)

    Wiggin and Dana LLPTadhg DooleyApril 26, 2016

    The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Court divided 4-4 on whether Nevada courts had jurisdiction over California under Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which held that one state can "open the doors of its courts to a private citizen's lawsuit against another State" without that state's consent. This leaves the door open for the Court to revisit the issue if/when a ninth Justice is appointed.

  5. The Supreme Court - April 2016 #3

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPTimothy DroskeApril 21, 2016

    The Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the damages, but affirmed $1 million of the award, and in remanding for a retrial on certain other damages, stated that those damages were not subject to the statutory cap of $50,000 that Nevada statutes imposed upon a similar suit against its own officials. The Board petitioned the Court, seeking 1) that Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) be overruled, which held that one State can open its courts to a private citizen’s lawsuit against another State without the other State’s consent; and 2) that the decision be reversed as improperly awarding private citizens greater damages than Nevada law would permit a private citizen to obtain against Nevada’s own agencies. Today, the Court vacated and remanded, affirming Nevada’s exercise of jurisdiction over California because the Court was equally divided on that question, but holding that Nevada’s application of its damages law in this case reflected a special, and constitutionally forbidden, policy of hostility to the public Acts’ of a sister State, in violation of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

  6. Supreme Court Decides Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

    Faegre Baker Daniels LLPStephanie BoxellApril 20, 2016

    IV, § 1, a State may not decline to apply the law of a sister State in favor of a special rule that is hostile to the public Acts of that sister State. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), the Court held that a State may open its courts to a private citizen’s suit against another State without that State’s consent. Plaintiff Hyatt, a Nevada citizen, invoked Hall in filing suit in Nevada against the Franchise Tax Board of California.

  7. The Supreme Court - April 19, 2016

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPApril 19, 2016

    The Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the damages, but affirmed $1 million of the award, and in remanding for a retrial on certain other damages, stated that those damages were not subject to the statutory cap of $50,000 that Nevada statutes imposed upon a similar suit against its own officials. The Board petitioned the Court, seeking 1) that Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) be overruled, which held that one State can open its courts to a private citizen’s lawsuit against another State without the other State’s consent; and 2) that the decision be reversed as improperly awarding private citizens greater damages than Nevada law would permit a private citizen to obtain against Nevada’s own agencies. Today, the Court vacated and remanded, affirming Nevada’s exercise of jurisdiction over California because the Court was equally divided on that question, but holding that Nevada’s application of its damages law in this case reflected a special, and constitutionally forbidden, policy of hostility to the public Acts’ of a sister State, in violation of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.The Court's decision is available here.

  8. Is The FTB’s Argument Nothing More Than Blowing In The Wind?

    Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPKeith Paul BishopDecember 16, 2015

    035(1). One big problem for California was that it took a far different position in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1979), a case in which it persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that the State of Nevada could be sued in California’s courts and California did not need to recognize Nevada’s limitation on damage awards against Nevada agencies. California’s reversal of position did not go unnoticed by Justice Ginsburg at oral argument last week: There is there is a certain irony, isn’t there, that California is the State that gave us a Nevada against California, right?

  9. Can CalPERS Be Sued In Federal Court Or Perhaps Even New York State Court?

    Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPDecember 4, 2012

    The U.S. Constitution does not prevent residents of one state (e.g., New York) from suing another state (e.g., California) in plaintiff’s state courts. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410(1979) (California residents may sue the State of Nevada in California courts for injuries suffered in a California automobile accident involving an employee of the State of Nevada). However, I do find it surprising that CalPERS would voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of another sovereign, particularly when that sovereign will not be bound by California’s limitations, if any, on sovereign immunity.