Opinion ID: 476289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nevada v. Hall

Text: 19 It appears that the district court misread Nevada v. Hall. 21 The Hall case arose out of an automobile accident occurring in California. In that accident, a Nevada State employee, while acting within the scope of his employment, negligently injured several California residents. The California residents sued the State of Nevada in a California state court. Nevada asserted immunity from the action stating that it could be sued only in a Nevada state court. Alternatively, Nevada argued that the California court was required to recognize the $25,000 limit on recoveries found in Nevada's statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. The California court rejected Nevada's claim of immunity and refused to recognize the $25,000 limit. The California Supreme Court noted that California had completely waived sovereign immunity and ruled that in an accident in California in which California residents had been negligently injured by an employee of Nevada, it would be obnoxious to the public policy of California if Nevada were allowed to claim sovereign immunity or to limit the damages it would pay. 22 After a remand and trial, the United States Supreme Court upheld the judgment against Nevada ruling that nothing in the Constitution, either express or implied, required California to comply with Nevada's request. 23 20 Our review of the district court's Decision and Rationale convinces us that the district court read Hall as support for its refusal to extend immunity as a matter of comity. But Hall offers no such support. Hall did not address whether a state court should refuse to extend immunity as a matter of comity, but only whether it could do so. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in Hall specifically noted: 21 It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established limits on liability. They are free to do so. 24 22 If anything, Hall counsels the states to extend immunity as a matter of comity. 23 In the wake of Nevada v. Hall, courts have decided several cases involving the question of immunity for other states or their subdivisions as a matter of comity. In a substantial and growing minority of these cases, the courts of one state have extended immunity to another state. 25 Other courts have, however, refused to extend immunity as a matter of comity. 26 For two reasons, we are not concerned with those decisions refusing to extend immunity. First, comity doctrine varies from state to state. That some states may be hesitant to apply the principle of comity to other states has little to do with whether a Texas court would choose to do so--unless, of course, the state in question had previously rejected a request by Texas for immunity. Second, in all but one of the cases in which a court refused to extend immunity as a matter of comity, it was clear that extending immunity would do violence to the public policy of the forum state. 27 Extending immunity to Miller County will not offend the public policy of Texas. 24 We find that the court erred to the extent it relied on Hall in refusing to extend comity.