| 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 |
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". Oyez. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
- ^ "Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 578 U.S. ___ (2016)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Hananel, Sam (April 20, 2016). "Tie leaves states facing lawsuits in other states". Reno Gazette-Journal.