Access to Courts

Access to Courts
The right to sue and defend in the courts is one of the highest and most essential
privileges of citizenship and must be allowed by each State to the citizens of all other
States to the same extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. 203 The constitutional
requirement is satisfied if the nonresident is given access to the courts of the State
upon terms which, in themselves, are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any
rights he may have, even though they may not be technically the same as those
accorded to resident citizens.204 The Supreme Court upheld a state statute of
limitations which prevented a nonresident from suing in the States courts after
expiration of the time for suit in the place where the cause of action arose 205 and
another such statute which suspended its operation as to resident plaintiffs, but not as
to nonresidents, during the period of the defendants absence from the State. 206 A state
law making it discretionary with the courts to entertain an action by a nonresident of
the State against a foreign corporation doing business in the State was sustained since
it was applicable alike to citizens and noncitizens residing out of the State. 207 A statute
permitting a suit in the courts of the State for wrongful death occurring outside the
State, only if the decedent was a resident of the State, was sustained, because it
operated equally upon representatives of the deceased whether citizens or
noncitizens.208 Being patently nondiscriminatory, a Uniform Reciprocal State Law to
secure the attendance of witnesses from within or without a State in criminal
proceedings, whereunder an Illinois resident, while temporarily in Florida, was
summoned to appear at a hearing for determination as to whether he should be
surrendered to a New York officer for testimony in the latter State, is not violative of
this clause.209
203

Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907); McKnett v. St. Louis
& S.F. Ry., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934).
204

Canadian Northern Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920).

205

Id. at 563.

206

Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72, 76 (1876).

207

Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 279 U.S. 377 (1929).

208

Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142 (1907).

209

New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959). Justices Douglas and Black dissented.

Access to Courts
The right to sue and defend in the courts is one of the highest and most essential
privileges of citizenship and must be allowed by each State to the citizens of all other
States to the same extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. 203 The constitutional
requirement is satisfied if the nonresident is given access to the courts of the State
upon terms which, in themselves, are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any
rights he may have, even though they may not be technically the same as those
accorded to resident citizens.204 The Supreme Court upheld a state statute of
limitations which prevented a nonresident from suing in the States courts after
expiration of the time for suit in the place where the cause of action arose 205 and
another such statute which suspended its operation as to resident plaintiffs, but not as
to nonresidents, during the period of the defendants absence from the State. 206 A state
law making it discretionary with the courts to entertain an action by a nonresident of
the State against a foreign corporation doing business in the State was sustained since
it was applicable alike to citizens and noncitizens residing out of the State. 207 A statute
permitting a suit in the courts of the State for wrongful death occurring outside the
State, only if the decedent was a resident of the State, was sustained, because it
operated equally upon representatives of the deceased whether citizens or
noncitizens.208 Being patently nondiscriminatory, a Uniform Reciprocal State Law to
secure the attendance of witnesses from within or without a State in criminal
proceedings, whereunder an Illinois resident, while temporarily in Florida, was
summoned to appear at a hearing for determination as to whether he should be
surrendered to a New York officer for testimony in the latter State, is not violative of
this clause.209
203

Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907); McKnett v. St. Louis
& S.F. Ry., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934).
204

Canadian Northern Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920).

205

Id. at 563.

206

Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72, 76 (1876).

207

Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 279 U.S. 377 (1929).

208

Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142 (1907).

209

New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959). Justices Douglas and Black dissented.

Pages: 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28