Hughes v. Fetter - 341 U.S. 609, 71 S. Ct. 980 (1951)

Rule:

Wisconsin's statutory policy, which excludes an Illinois cause of action, is forbidden by the national policy of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1.

Facts:

Appellant administrator brought an action in a Wisconsin state court to recover damages for the death of his decedent, who was involved in an automobile accident in Illinois. The allegedly negligent driver and his insurer were named as defendants. On their motion the trial court entered summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, holding that Wis. Stat. § 331.03, which created a right of action only for deaths caused in that state, established a local public policy against Wisconsin's entertaining suits brought under the wrongful death acts of other states. The state supreme court affirmed, rejecting the administrator's contention that the Wisconsin statute violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. Appellant administrator challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did Wis. Stat. § 331.03 violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On further appeal, the Court held that Wisconsin's statutory policy excluding the Illinois cause of action was forbidden by the national policy of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which looked toward maximum enforcement in each state of the obligations or rights created or recognized by the statutes of other states. According to the Court, Wisconsin cannot escape its constitutional obligation to enforce the rights and duties validly created under the laws of other states by the simple device of removing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent. The Court noted that Wisconsin had no antagonism towards wrongful death suits, as evidenced by their own wrongful death statute. However, assuming that the doctrine of forum non conveniens might under some circumstances justify a forum state in refusing to accord full faith and credit to acts of sister states, the Wisconsin statutory policy cannot be considered as an application of that doctrine, since this case is not one which lacks a close relationship with Wisconsin.