Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n of Cal.
294 U.S. 532, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 56, 55 S. Ct. 518 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the statutes of two states conflict, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not absolute and does not require a state to subordinate its own laws and policies to those of another state; instead, a court will resolve the conflict by appraising the governmental interests of each jurisdiction and applying the law of the state with the superior interest.
Facts:
- Palma, a non-resident alien, and Alaska Packers Association executed a written employment contract in San Francisco, California.
- The contract was for seasonal work in Alaska, and stipulated that the parties would be subject to the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Law.
- Under the contract, Alaska Packers was to transport Palma to Alaska and, at the season's end, return him to San Francisco where he would be paid his wages.
- A California statute provided that employers could not use contracts to exempt themselves from liability under California's compensation act.
- Another California statute gave the state's compensation commission jurisdiction over injuries suffered outside the state if the employment contract was made in California.
- Palma sustained an injury in the course of his employment while working in Alaska.
- After the season, Palma returned to California as required by his contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Palma applied for and received a compensation award from the California Industrial Accident Commission.
- Alaska Packers Association, the employer, petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the commission's award.
- The Supreme Court of California upheld the award from the Industrial Accident Commission.
- Alaska Packers Association appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of California to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state violate the Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by applying its own workers' compensation statute to an injury sustained in another jurisdiction, when the employment contract was made within the state and the state has a significant governmental interest in the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
No. A state does not violate the Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses by applying its own workers' compensation laws under these circumstances. With respect to due process, a state has the power to regulate the incidents of an employment contract created within its borders, even if the work is performed elsewhere. California has a legitimate public interest in governing the employer-employee relationship to ensure that workers hired within the state do not become public charges upon their return, justifying the application of its law to out-of-state injuries. Regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it does not compel a state to automatically subordinate its own statutes to those of another. Instead, the court must resolve the conflict by appraising the governmental interests of each jurisdiction. Here, California's interest in providing a remedy for an employee hired within its borders, who would likely be remediless otherwise, is superior to Alaska's interest in an employee who was only a temporary worker and not a resident. Therefore, California is permitted to apply its own law.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'governmental interest analysis' as a modern approach to resolving choice-of-law conflicts, particularly under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It marked a significant departure from rigid, territorially-based rules (e.g., the law of the place of injury governs) toward a more flexible balancing test. The case empowers a forum state to apply its own law if it has a legitimate and substantial interest in the dispute, even if another state also has a connection. This precedent significantly influences how courts handle conflicts between state statutes, requiring them to weigh competing state policies rather than applying a mechanical rule.
Unlock the full brief for Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n of Cal.