Nevada v. Hall

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Federal Courts

440 U.S. 410 (1979)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsinterstate sovereign immunityFull Faith and Credit Clausestate sovereign immunitystate-court jurisdictionsister-state suitscomityFull Faith and Credit

Facts

Respondents, California residents, were severely injured in an automobile collision on a California highway. The other driver, who was killed, was an employee of the University of Nevada driving a car owned by the State of Nevada while engaged in official business, and the University was an instrumentality of the State. Respondents sued Nevada and the University in California court, serving process under California's nonresident motorist statute. Nevada argued that even if suit could proceed, California had to apply Nevada's statutory $25,000 cap on tort recoveries against the State.

Issue

Does the Federal Constitution prohibit California courts from exercising jurisdiction over Nevada in a private tort suit, or require California to apply Nevada's statutory limit on tort damages against itself? More specifically, does interstate sovereign immunity arise as a constitutional command rather than as a matter of comity, and does the Full Faith and Credit Clause compel enforcement of Nevada's damages cap?

Rule

The Constitution does not confer on a State an immunity from private suit in the courts of another State. Any immunity a State receives in a sister State's courts is a matter of the forum State's comity unless some federal constitutional or statutory provision requires otherwise. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a forum State to substitute another State's conflicting law for its own when doing so would violate the forum State's legitimate public policy concerning persons and events within its borders.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A truck owned by the State of Oregon and driven by an Oregon wildlife officer on official business collides with a pedestrian in Boise, Idaho. Idaho law allows negligence suits against its own government and authorizes service on nonresident motorists for accidents occurring on Idaho roads.

If the injured pedestrian sues Oregon in an Idaho state court, which is the strongest response to Oregon's argument that the Federal Constitution itself bars the suit absent Oregon's consent?

Explanation. The majority distinguished immunity in a sovereign's own courts from immunity in another sovereign's courts. Immunity in a sister State's courts is not a constitutional command; it depends on the forum State's law or comity unless some federal law says otherwise. Article III and the Eleventh Amendment concern federal judicial power, not the power of Idaho's courts to hear the case.