vested rights theory

The plaintiff, Mrs. Haumschild, and her husband were domiciled in Wisconsin at all relevant times. Wisconsin is both the state of the forum and of the domicile while California is the state where the alleged wrong was committed. While the couple was traveling in California, Mrs. Haumschild sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident that was allegedly caused by her husband's negligence. She subsequently commenced an action in Wisconsin circuit court against her husband and Continental Casualty Company, his insurer, seeking damages for those injuries. The defendants asserted that California law barred a wife from suing her husband in tort and therefore precluded recovery. The circuit court rendered judgment against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The appeal was argued before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on March 2, 1959. On April 10, 1959, the court reversed the judgment in an opinion authored by Justice Currie, with Justice Fairchild filing a separate concurrence joined by Justice Brown.

The plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of Everett A. Loucks, brought suit in New York courts seeking damages for his death. Loucks was traveling on a highway in Massachusetts when he was run down and killed by the negligence of servants of the defendant Standard Oil Co. of New York who were then engaged in the defendant's business. Loucks left a wife and two children, all residents of New York. A Massachusetts statute, Public Laws chapter 171 section 2 as amended by Laws of 1907 chapter 375, states that if a person or corporation by negligence causes the death of a person who is in the exercise of due care and not in the defendant's employment or service, the defendant shall be liable in damages in a sum of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars, to be assessed with reference to the degree of culpability, to be recovered in an action of tort commenced within two years after the injury by the executor or administrator of the deceased, one-half to the use of the widow and one-half to the use of the children. The action was brought under that Massachusetts statute. The case reached the Court of Appeals of New York after proceedings in the lower courts, including an order by the Special Term and a judgment by the Appellate Division. All parties to the action are residents of New York. The death occurred on a Massachusetts highway during the course of the defendant's business operations there.

In 1928, the La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation, owned a ditch diverting water from the La Plata River in Colorado for irrigation purposes. On July 5, 1928, the company filed suit in the District Court for La Plata County against Hinderlider, the State Engineer of Colorado, and his subordinates. The complaint alleged that since June 24, 1928, the defendants had administered the river's water in a manner that deprived the company of water it claimed the right to divert, and it sought a mandatory injunction. The defendants admitted shutting the company's head-gate but maintained that their actions complied with the La Plata River Compact, an agreement between Colorado and New Mexico approved by Congress. The compact allocated shares of the river's flow between the states, including provisions for unrestricted use when flow was high and rotation of the entire flow during low-flow periods in summer months. In 1928, the state engineers of both states implemented a rotation schedule of ten-day alternating periods to maximize beneficial use when the river was low. The La Plata River originates in Colorado's mountains, flows into New Mexico, and joins the San Juan River. Both states had long used its waters for irrigation under the appropriation doctrine, where priority of beneficial use determines rights. A 1898 Colorado decree had adjudicated the Ditch Company's rights to 39.5 cubic feet per second, subject to five senior priorities totaling 19 second feet. On June 24, 1928, the stream flow at the Colorado gauging station measured 57 second feet. The District Court dismissed the suit after the first trial in 1930, finding the compact justified the defendants' actions. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that judgment. After remand and a second trial on the same evidence, the trial court again entered a decree favorable to the Ditch Company in 1936, which the state supreme court affirmed in 1937. The United States Supreme Court granted review following an appeal. The compact had been negotiated after authorization by the legislatures of both states in 1921, ratified by them in 1923, and approved by Congress in 1925.