Hughes, Administrator, v. Fetter et al.
341 U.S. 609 (1951)
Rule of Law:
A state cannot refuse to entertain a cause of action created by a sister state's public act (statute) based on a conflicting local policy, where the forum state has no genuine policy against such suits in general and has significant connections to the parties involved. The national interest in uniformity under the Full Faith and Credit Clause outweighs a state's policy of merely closing its courts to foreign causes of action it deems inconvenient.
Facts:
- Harold Hughes, a resident of Wisconsin, was fatally injured in an automobile accident in Illinois.
- The driver who allegedly caused the accident was also a resident of Wisconsin.
- The administrator appointed to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of Hughes's estate was a Wisconsin resident, appointed under Wisconsin law.
- An insurance company named as a defendant in the subsequent lawsuit was a corporation created under Wisconsin law.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Harold Hughes's estate brought a wrongful death action in a Wisconsin state trial court against the allegedly negligent driver and an insurance company.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a Wisconsin statute barred suits for deaths occurring outside the state.
- The Wisconsin trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint on the merits.
- The administrator (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The administrator appealed 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 Wisconsin statute that prevents its courts from hearing wrongful death claims arising under the laws of another state violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes. Wisconsin’s statutory policy which excludes the Illinois cause of action is forbidden by the national policy of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause demands that states give maximum enforcement to the rights and obligations created by sister states. While a state is not always compelled to subordinate its own policy, Wisconsin's policy here is not a strong one; it regularly provides a forum for wrongful death actions, barring only those where the death occurred outside the state. Furthermore, Wisconsin has a significant connection to the litigation, as the decedent, the administrator, the individual defendant, and the corporate defendant were all residents or entities of Wisconsin. Given these close ties, Wisconsin’s interest in closing its courts is minimal compared to the strong national interest in ensuring that a plaintiff has a forum to enforce a valid claim created by a sister state.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should not be interpreted to create a 'state of vassalage' by forcing a state to apply another's laws in its own courts against its stated policy. States have a vital interest in controlling the administration of their own judicial systems. Wisconsin has a reasonable basis for its statute: to avoid the complexities of applying foreign law, dealing with out-of-state evidence and witnesses, and to defer to the courts of the state where the injury occurred. The plaintiff was not deprived of a remedy, as a suit could have been brought in Illinois. The Court should not substitute its own judgment by choosing Illinois's policy over Wisconsin's legislatively-enacted policy for its own courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the Full Faith and Credit Clause's application to state statutes ('public acts'), bringing their enforcement closer to the near-absolute enforcement required for sister-state judgments. It established that a state's 'public policy' exception is not a valid reason to refuse jurisdiction over a foreign cause of action if the forum state entertains analogous domestic claims. The ruling mandates a balancing of interests, weighing the forum state's policy against the national interest in interstate comity, thereby limiting a state's ability to close its courthouse doors to transitory causes of action, especially when the forum has substantial contacts with the parties.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hughes, Administrator, v. Fetter et al. (1951)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"