Citation network
Nevada Vs. Hall
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1979
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 410 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Nevada v. HallSearch
-
U.S. 410 (1979) Nevada v. HallSearch
-
not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Pacific Ins. Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
law, that the State of Nevada was amenable to suit in California courts, and remanded the case for trial. Hall v. UniversitySearch
-
as a matter of comity. This point was plainly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddonSearch
-
and actually prevailed in this Court's decision in Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
situations, the courts of one State must apply the statutory law of another State. Thus, in Bradford Electric Co. v. ClapperSearch
-
But this Court's Page 440 U. S. 422 decision in Pacific Insurance Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
an understanding of state policy, rather than a constitutional command. As this Court stated in Bank of Augusta v. EarleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Kawananakoa v. PolblankSearch
-
Such a defense was sustained in 1929 by the Supreme Court of North Dakota in Paulus v. SouthSearch
-
concluded that the defense would no longer be recognized, at least in certain circumstances, in that State. See Mayle v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
State Court Jurisdiction Over Sister States v. AmericanSearch
-
See Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
actions. The States are subject to suit by both their sister States and the United States. See, e.g., North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
-
United States v. MississippiSearch
-
Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Alaska Packers Assn. v. IndustrialSearch
-
Bonaparte v. TaxSearch
-
Cf. Georgia v. ChattanoogaSearch
-
Hall v. UniversitySearch
-
of Nevada, 74 Cal.App 3d 280, 284, 141 Cal.Rptr. 439, 441 (1977), quoting Hall v. UniversitySearch
-
The Court has had no difficulty in implying the guarantee of freedom of association in the First Amendment, NAACP v. ButtonSearch
-
U. S. 56 -57 (1973), and it has had no difficulty in implying a right of interstate travel, Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
was too obvious to deserve mention. The prompt passage of the Eleventh Amendment nullifying the decision in Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the precise question presented here was considered, and, indeed, in which the Court's result was rejected. Paulus v. SouthSearch
-
Paulus v. SouthSearch
-
Thus, in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 833 , 426 U. S. 852 (1976), quoting Fry v. UnitedSearch
-
held that, by virtue of its sovereign immunity, Virginia was immune from the processes of Pennsylvania. Nathan v. VirginiaSearch
-
The Federalist No. 81, p. 508 (H. Lodge ed.1908) (emphasis in original). In Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
has indicated that unconsenting States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of other States. In Beers v. ArkansasSearch
-
Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
statement by this Court on the topic appears to be that authored by Mr. Justice Black in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
right to sovereign immunity has been described, it has been in expansive terms. In Great Northern Insurance Co. v. ReadSearch
-
of constitutional dimension because their derogation would undermine the logic of the constitutional scheme. In Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Id. at 134 U. S. 21 . Similarly, in Monaco v. MississippiSearch
-
cases is most telling. In the first such case, Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
Wall. 35 (1868), the Court invalidated a Nevada head tax on exit from the State, relying in large part on McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
even remove the action to federal court, because it is not a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Moor v. CountySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Pacific Ins. Co. v. IndustrialSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial