Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2016)

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. ___ (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 nameFranchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v. Gilbert P. Hyatt
Docket no.14-1175
Citations578 U.S. ___ (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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentRoberts, joined by Thomas

References

  1. "Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt". Oyez. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
  2. "Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 578 U.S. ___ (2016)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
  3. Gutoff, Jonathan M. (2017). "Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt: A Split Court, Full Faith and Credit, and Federal Common Law". Roger Williams University Law Review. 22: 248.
  4. Hananel, Sam (2016-04-20). "Tie leaves states facing lawsuits in other states". Reno Gazette-Journal.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.