341 U.S. 609 (1951)
Harold Hughes was fatally injured in an automobile accident in Illinois.1 His administrator filed suit in Wisconsin state court under the Illinois wrongful death statute against the allegedly negligent driver and an insurance company as defendants.2
The Wisconsin trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the merits.3 It did so after determining that a Wisconsin statute limited wrongful death actions to those arising from deaths caused within the state.4
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.5 The administrator then appealed to the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.6
The appellant administrator, the decedent Harold Hughes, and the individual defendant were all residents of Wisconsin.7 The appellant had been appointed administrator under Wisconsin law, and the corporate defendant insurance company had been created under Wisconsin laws.8
Wisconsin was the only jurisdiction in which original service could be obtained on the insurance company defendant.9 Jurisdiction over the individual defendant could apparently be obtained in Illinois through substituted service.10
Whether Wisconsin, over the objection raised, can close the doors of its courts to the cause of action created by the Illinois wrongful death act?11
Full faith and credit does not automatically compel a forum state to subordinate its own statutory policy to a conflicting public act of another state; rather, it is for this Court to choose in each case between the competing public policies involved, and Wisconsin's policy must give way here.12
No. Harold Hughes was fatally injured in an automobile accident in Illinois.13 His administrator brought suit in Wisconsin state court based on the Illinois wrongful death statute, naming the negligent driver and an insurance company as defendants.14 The parties were all residents of Wisconsin, with the administrator appointed under Wisconsin law and the insurance company incorporated there.15 Wisconsin provided the only place for original service on the insurance company.16
Subsequently, the Wisconsin trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the merits pursuant to a state statute limiting actions to deaths caused in Wisconsin.17 The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal.18 The administrator then appealed to the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, raising the full faith and credit issue.19 The case presented strong ties to Wisconsin, as the decedent, plaintiff, and individual defendant all resided there, and the corporate defendant was a Wisconsin entity.20
Although jurisdiction over the individual defendant might be available in Illinois via substituted service, Wisconsin's exclusion could deprive plaintiffs of any forum in some instances.21 These facts demonstrated that the controversy was not unrelated to the forum state.22 Wisconsin's policy of barring foreign wrongful death actions must yield under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because the state harbors no general antagonism to such suits and regularly provides forums for local deaths.23 The national policy favoring enforcement of sister state public acts prevails here over the local exclusionary rule.24
Therefore, the Wisconsin courts cannot close their doors to this Illinois cause of action.25
Wisconsin cannot close the doors of its courts to the cause of action created by the Illinois wrongful death act.26
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Reed, Jackson, And Minton
Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Reed, Jackson, and Minton, dissented.27 The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require the forum to deny its own law.28 It need not follow the tort law of another state where there is a reasonable basis for closing its courts to the foreign cause of action.29 In this tort action there is little reason to impose a state of vassalage on the forum.30 The liability does not rest on a pre-existing relationship between plaintiff and defendant.31
Wisconsin may reasonably prefer to open its courts only where witnesses will be available locally.32 Courts are acquainted with a detailed local statute.33 Wisconsin may allow the state where the accident occurred to construe and apply its own statute.34 The dissent emphasized that the only question is how far the Clause undercuts the Tenth Amendment reservation of domestic affairs to the states.35 No claim was made of discrimination against other states' citizens or of due process violation.36