Loading AI tools
2016 United States Supreme Court case From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. 171 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Nevada rule that does not extend the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is effectively a "policy of hostility", which is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court split equally on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled, effectively upholding it.[1][2][3][4]
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued December 7, 2015 Decided April 19, 2016 | |
Full case name | Franchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v. Gilbert P. Hyatt |
Docket no. | 14-1175 |
Citations | 578 U.S. 171 (more) 136 S. Ct. 1277; 194 L. Ed. 2d 431 |
Holding | |
The Nevada rule not extending the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is a "policy of hostility" and unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
Dissent | Roberts, joined by Thomas |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.