## Facts

- A University of Nevada–Reno employee, driving a university-owned vehicle on official business, lost control on Interstate 80 in California during a rainstorm, crossed into oncoming traffic, and collided with a car carrying the Hall family and another passenger.
- The Nevada driver was killed; the California occupants suffered serious injuries, including alleged long-term neurological and developmental harm.
- The injured California residents sought compensation from Nevada, but the Nevada Board of Examiners denied their claim.
- The plaintiffs sued in California state court the driver’s estate, the University of Nevada–Reno, and the State of Nevada.
- Nevada invoked a Nevada statute limiting tort recovery against the state to \$25,000 and argued California had to apply that cap.

## Issues

1. Whether a state is constitutionally immune from private suit in the courts of another state.
2. Whether Article III or the Eleventh Amendment limits a state court’s power to entertain a private suit against a sister state.
3. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required California to apply Nevada’s statutory \$25,000 damages limitation in a California tort action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the California judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The Court held that a state is not constitutionally immune from private suit in another state’s courts.
- The Court held neither Article III nor the Eleventh Amendment provided a basis to restrict California courts from adjudicating the claims against Nevada.
- The Court rejected Nevada’s Full Faith and Credit argument and allowed California to apply its own law rather than Nevada’s damages cap.
- The plaintiffs’ California judgment (approximately \$1.15 million) was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- A state’s immunity from suit without consent in its own courts does not, by itself, establish a constitutional right to immunity in the courts of another sovereign.
- Article III and the Eleventh Amendment regulate federal judicial power and do not, without more, impose limits on the judicial power of state courts over sister states.
- Full Faith and Credit does not compel a forum state to apply another state’s law when doing so would conflict with the forum’s legitimate public policy, including policies governing compensation for injuries occurring within the forum.
- Any decision by a forum state to extend immunity to a sister state is generally a matter of comity rather than constitutional command.

## Conclusion

The Court held California could adjudicate and enter a tort judgment against Nevada for injuries arising from a California highway accident, and California was not constitutionally required to grant Nevada immunity or enforce Nevada’s statutory damages cap.


Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979)