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
Supreme Court of the United States
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. ___ (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
Majority	Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent	Roberts, 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.

External links

• Text of Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, No. 14-1175, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from:  CourtListener  Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion)