Conflicts

Front 1

Renvoi

Back 1

• If the other jurisdiction would not have used its own substantive law if the case had been filed there, the local court may use the substantive law used in the other forum
o EX: P sues D in State A. Because of the kind of case, State A would apply State B’s law. However, State B would apply State A law. So State A, instead of applying State B law, applies its own law.

Front 2

Depecage

Back 2

• Court will treat individual issues in a case differently under choice-of-law analysis.
o EX: Court may use law of the place contract was executed to determine formation issues while using law of state in which performance is dude to decide performance issues.

Front 3

Traditional “Vested Rights” Approach

Back 3

• From First Restatement
• If an action is a tort at the place of the wrong, it can be enforced in any other state, and
• If an action is not a tort at the place of the wrong, it can be enforced in no other state
o So ask: in which jurisdiction did injury occur? Where jurisdiction exists, its law will be enforced.

Front 4

Governmental Interest Test

Back 4

Inquire into policies expressed in the laws of the forum state and the other state.
• If court finds that one state has an interest in the application of its policy in the circumstances of the case and the other has none—apply the law of the interested state
• If court finds apparent conflict (both jurisdictions possess an interest that is reasonable under the circumstances), it should reconsider.
o A more moderate and restrained interpretation of the policy or interest of one state or the other may avoid conflict.
• If, upon reconsideration, the court finds that a conflict between the legitimate interests of the two states is unavoidable, it should apply the law of the forum

Front 5

Most Significant Relationship Test

Back 5

Second Restatement
2 Step Process:
First: Look at the Contacts
Where the parties and the transactions have the most significant contacts

Second: Assess the policy:
1. Policy of the forum state
2. Policy of the interested state(s) and their interests in resolution of the instant issue.
3. Policy underlying the statute
4. The Protection of the Parties Justified Expectations; and
5. The Ease of Application of the Law to be Utilized
6. Uniformity in Result
7. Needs of Interstate and International System

Front 6

Torts: Vested Rights Approach

Back 6

First Restatement
• Court will determine the substantive rights of an injured party according to the law of the state where the injury occurs

Front 7

Torts: Governmental Interest Analysis

Back 7

• If court finds that one state has an interest in the application of its policy in the circumstances of the case and the other has none—apply the law of the interested state
• If court finds apparent conflict (both jurisdictions possess an interest that is reasonable under the circumstances), it should reconsider.
• A more moderate and restrained interpretation of the policy or interest of one state or the other may avoid conflict
• If, upon reconsideration, the court finds that a conflict between the legitimate interests of the two states is unavoidable, it should apply the law of the forum

Front 8

Torts: Most Significant Relationship Test

Back 8

• Second Restatement
2 Step Process:
First: Look at Contacts
Including:
1. The place of the injury
2. Place where conduct causing the injury occurred
3. Connection of the parties to the relevant fora
4. Place where the relationship between the parties (if any) is centered

Second: Examine policy:
1. Needs of interstate and international system
2. Relevant policies of the forum
3. Relevant policies of any other states and their interests in the resolution of an instant issue
4. Protection of justified expectations
5. Policies underlying field of law
6. Uniformity of result, and
7. Ease in application of law to be utilized

Front 9

Contracts: First Restatement (Place of Making)

Back 9

• Look to see if contract contains valid choice of law provision--If it does, apply that
o Unless overreaching (no connection exists) or offend public policy (law selected permits acts contrary to public policy—non-compete provisions)
• Employ the law of the place where contract was “made” (entered into, not necessarily negotiated)
o Exception: For issues of performance, court will examine law of jurisdiction in which performance is due

Front 10

Contracts: Second Restatement

Back 10

• Look to see if contract contains valid choice of law provision—if it does, apply that
o Unless overreaching (no connection exists) or offend public policy (law selected permits acts contrary to public policy—non-compete provisions)

Most Significant Relationship Test
First: Contacts
Including:
1. Place where contract was made
2. Place where contract was negotiated
3. Place of performance
4. Location of subject of the contract (if applicable); and
5. Connection of the parties to the forums

Second: Assess the policy:
1. Policy of the forum state
2. Policy of the interested state(s) and their interests in resolution of the instant issue.
3. Policy underlying the statute
4. The Protection of the Parties Justified Expectations; and
5. The Ease of Application of the Law to be Utilized
6. Uniformity in Result
7. Needs of Interstate and International System

Front 11

Property: Traditional Approach: Situs

Back 11

• Most common approach
• All issues affecting title to land determined by law of the situs of the land
o Note: Court may characterize case as contract case to apply the law of state where contract made, etc.

Front 12

Property: More Significant Relationship

Back 12

--Depart from situs if another state has a “more significant relationship” to the case or a greater interest in the outcome.

Contacts:
1. Where the contract at issue was negotiated
2. Where the parties entered the contract
3. Where the parties to the contract are domiciled

Policy:
1. Examine any state policy protecting expectations of land purchaser; or
2. General interest in securing integrity of transactions that occur within a state’s borders

Front 13

Corporations: Internal Affairs

Back 13

• Corporation’s internal affairs (director duties, shareholder power, etc.) governed by law of state of incorporation

Front 14

Corporations: External Affairs

Back 14

• Dispute with another person or entity, disputed subject areas’ choice-of law rules will apply
o EX: contract dispute—most significant relationship test

Front 15

Worker’s Compensation: Traditional Rule

Back 15

• This is the minority rule
• Same as in First Restatement approach to Torts
o Law of place of injury generally applies

Front 16

Worker’s Compensation: Significant Interest

Back 16

• If state concludes it possesses a significant interest in the dispute, it may apply its own workers’ compensation law

Front 17

Family Law: Marriage: Lex Celebrationis

Back 17

• Law of the place where marriage entered into governs the formation of the marriage
o Go to foreign jurisdiction to get married because home state would not let you get married—home state will recognize the marriage as legally entered into.
• 2 Exceptions:
o When legislature clearly states that general rule may not be followed; or
o The marriage offends public policy (bigamy, polygamy, etc.)

Front 18

Family Law: Divorce

Back 18

• As long as the court possesses jurisdiction it will apply its own law regarding divorce
o Jurisdiction if one of the parties domiciled in the state

Front 19

Substance vs. Procedure

Back 19

• Courts apply their own procedural laws and, if applicable, other state’s substantive laws
• Diversity actions: federal courts use state law to determine limitation period for state causes of action
• Statutes of Limitations generally procedural
o Exception: If statute of limitations is specific to a particular kind of claim and was created by the law that created the cause of action, courts characterize statute of limitations as substantive (apply the other state’s)

Front 20

Public Policy Defense to Application of Foreign Law

Back 20

• Court may refuse to enforce laws of another jurisdiction if those laws offend public policy of the local jurisdiction
o Contract dealing with indentured servants
• If other jurisdiction is a sister state, as opposed to foreign country, less likely to find sister state’s laws offend public policy

Front 21

Due Process Limitations

Back 21

• Whether parties possess enough of a connection to jurisdiction that the court may apply that jurisdiction’s laws
• State may only select to apply the substantive law of a forum which has a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests sufficient to make the application of that state’s law neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.

Front 22

Full Faith and Credit Limitations

Back 22

• Court required to determine whether another state possesses such a connection with the dispute that the court must apply the other state’s laws
• Today, forum court has discretion to apply whatever law it deems appropriate subject to the Due Process standard (not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair)

Front 23

Federal Supremacy

Back 23

Any federal law (even regulation of agency) trumps any conflicting state law
• Express Preemption
o Whether challenged state law is one that federal law intended to preempt
• Implied Preemption
o Court must determine whether:
1. Congress has “occupied the field” in which the state is attempting to regulate;
2. A state law directly conflicts with federal law; or
3. Enforcement of the state law would frustrate federal purposes

Front 24

Erie Doctrine

Back 24

In diversity cases, the choice-of-law rules of the state in which the federal court sits would be used to determine which state’s substantive law governs

--Effect of Venue Transfer
o Transferee court will use choice-of-law rule that transferor court would have used

--No federal common law
o Apply substantive law that would have been applied if case filed in court of the state where federal court located
o Try to predict from available state case law how state’s highest court would interpret statute

Front 25

Recognition/Enforcement: Full Faith & Credit

Back 25

Final judgment be given full faith & credit between and among:
1. State courts
2. Federal courts
3. Courts of the U.S. territories
4. Unless a defense applies

Front 26

Defenses to Recognition/Enforcement of Other State’s Judgment

Back 26

1. Lack of Jurisdiction
--If other court lacked jurisdiction; and
-----Party challenging judgment did not litigate jurisdictional issue (or have opportunity to)
2. Fraud; Equitable Defenses
--Extrinsic Fraud
-----Procured by outright fraudulent tactics going to the heart of the judgment itself (bribery of judge, etc.)
--Intrinsic Fraud
-----Fraud committed regarding an element of the overall case Ex: Perjury
3. Not on Merits
4. Judgments Lacking Finality
--On appeal, etc.

Front 27

Defenses to Recognition/Enforcement: International Judgments

Back 27

1. Not subject to Full Faith and Credit
2. But doctrine of comity
---Decide whether to enforce by looking at factors:
------Lack of Jurisdiction
----------Don't look to see whether that court met its own jurisdictional rules. ----------Look to see if that exercise of jurisdiction would meet Due Process Standard

------Public Policy
----------Contracts based on involuntary servitude

Front 28

Statute of Limitations

Back 28

Most states treat statute of limitations as procedural for choice of law purposes

But where the statute of limitations is specific to a particular kind of claim and was created by the law that created that cause of action, courts will characterize it as substantive and apply it

Front 29

Constitutional Limitations: Due Process

Back 29

Whether parties possess enough of a connection to some jurisdiction to justify enforcing that jurisdiction's law

State may only select to apply the substantive law of a forum which has a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary or fundamentally unfair

Front 30

Constitutional Limitations: Full Faith and Credit Clause

Back 30

Whether a state has SUCH a connection that the court MUST recognize the other state's law.

Today: forum courts have discretion to apply whatever law it deems appropriate under the circumstances

"Where more than one State has sufficiently substantial contact with the activity in question, the forum state, by analysis of the interests possessed by the states involved, could constitutionally apply to the decision of the case the law of one or another state having interest in the multistate activity"