1. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire was asked to consider whether California law controls whether real property in California owned by a California trust is part of a New Hampshire marital estate. It declined to address this question of law. The question presented is: Does this constitute "a policy of 'hostility to the public Acts '" of a sister State?

2. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently "observed we will reach 'a pure question of law ' even if not raised below, where refusal to reach the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice. " See Barna v. Bd. ofSch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 147 (2017). The question presented is: Whether, or under what circumstances, does the Due Process Clause require an appellate court to reach a "pure question of law" if it believes the question has not been fully considered below?

Does this constitute a policy of 'hostility to the public Acts' of a sister State?