## Facts

- A Wisconsin resident was killed in an automobile accident in Illinois.
- The decedent’s estate administrator, appointed under Wisconsin law, sued in Wisconsin state court under the Illinois wrongful death statute.
- The defendants were a Wisconsin driver alleged to be negligent and a Wisconsin insurance company; both were Wisconsin domiciliaries.
- Wisconsin’s wrongful death statute was construed to allow actions only for deaths caused in Wisconsin and to reflect a state policy against entertaining wrongful death actions created by other states.
- The Wisconsin trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on this “door-closing” policy.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Wisconsin courts to hear the Illinois statutory claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a state to refuse to entertain a wrongful death cause of action created by another state’s statute solely because the death occurred outside the forum state.
2. Whether a state may avoid constitutional obligations to enforce sister-state statutory rights by withdrawing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent to hear the case.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Wisconsin’s statutory policy excluding this Illinois wrongful death cause of action contravened the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- The Illinois wrongful death statute was treated as a “public act” entitled to full faith and credit.
- Wisconsin could not evade full faith and credit by jurisdictional redefinition that barred otherwise competent courts from hearing sister-state claims.
- Wisconsin’s asserted policy was insufficient because Wisconsin was not generally hostile to wrongful death actions; it provided a comparable remedy for in-state deaths.
- The Court rejected characterization of Wisconsin’s rule as forum non conveniens, given the strong Wisconsin connections (parties and administrator) and the implausibility that Wisconsin was an inconvenient forum on these facts.
- The dissent would have allowed Wisconsin to decline jurisdiction on a “reasonable basis,” emphasizing state control over its courts and the availability of an Illinois forum.

## Legal Principles

- Sister-state statutes creating causes of action are “public acts” within the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- A forum state generally may not close its courts to a sister-state statutory cause of action when its courts are otherwise competent and the forum’s refusal rests on a territorial or administrative exclusion rather than a strong substantive policy against the claim type.
- A state cannot satisfy full faith and credit by denying jurisdiction through a categorical rule designed to exclude sister-state rights.
- Full faith and credit analysis may require choosing between competing state policies; a weak forum policy of exclusion may yield to the national interest in enforcing sister-state-created rights.
- A categorical door-closing rule is not validated as forum non conveniens when the case has substantial forum connections and the doctrine’s individualized convenience rationale is not applied.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Wisconsin had to entertain the Illinois wrongful death action because Wisconsin’s territorial door-closing policy, applied to bar an otherwise cognizable sister-state statutory claim in a competent court, violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause.


Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609 (1951)