Conflicts

Front 1

recognition of sister state judgments, generally

Back 1

must meet FF&C reqs; and no valid defenses

Front 2

FF&C reqs

Back 2

valid jurisdx; judgment was final; judgment was on the merits (including default and consent, but NOT soL)

Front 3

defenses to FF&C

Back 3

must discuss, even if they don't work; judgment is penal, "which is a judgment rendered for an offense against the publc" (criminal or civil fines; not punitives); extrinsic fraud;

Front 4

non-defenses to FF&C

Back 4

must discuss, even if they don't work; including intrinsic fraud, like perjury; tax judgmetns; violation of forum's PP; mistakes by judge in earlier trial; inconsistent judgments

Front 5

recognition of foreign country judgments

Back 5

if comity test is satisfied: proper jurisdx and fair procedures must have been used

Front 6

recognition of divorce decree

Back 6

a valid divorce req's proper SMJ - that one spouse was domiciled in the state rendering the divorce

Front 7

BoP for recognition of divorce decree

Back 7

The attacker bears the BoP and can introduce any relevant evidence whatsoever

Front 8

Matrimonial recognition, not divorce decree

Back 8

property awards- must have personal jurisdx (so he can't go to Vegas and get alimony awarded over her w/o her); child custody- valid jurisdx only in child's home state;

Front 9

vested rights approach to torts

Back 9

When the CoA arises, P's rights become vested; so the place of the injury, not the negligence

Front 10

vested rights approach to K

Back 10

rights vest the moment the K is made;

Front 11

Babcock choice making

Back 11

if false conflict, apply law of interested state; if true confilct, apply law of forum state, unless other is much stronger; if disinterested forum, apply law closest to NY or better law; if no interested state, apply NY law

Front 12

Babcock + Torts

Back 12

Apply 5 step babcock + 3 step Neumeier: Basically, apply alw of place of injury unless both parties live somewhere else; see next card for full analysis

Front 13

Neumeier

Back 13

1) same domicile rule - if P&D are same domicile, use that state; 2) if different states, use the law of place where accident occurs if it helps its citizen; 3) if different states and neither law helps its citizen, use law of place of injury

Front 14

Babcock + K

Back 14

can always choose law for construction; for K validity, choose any law if not contrary to fundamental PP, a substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction; and choice is free of duress (not adhesion K)

Front 15

NY Special K

Back 15

for large K's, if ≥ $250k, parties can choose NY law even if no connection; if ≥ $1M, parites can use a NY forum selection clause and no dismissal for FNC

Front 16

Insurance Ks, choice of law

Back 16

all issues regarding the rights and duties under an ins policy are determined by the state where the policy was written

Front 17

real & personal property, choice of law

Back 17

real: situs of property, no interest analysis; personal: situs rule, but if intestate succession, choose decedent's domicile at death

Front 18

inheritance, choice of law

Back 18

a non-NY domiciliary can choose NY in a will to dispose of NY assets, even if it would oust a spouse from elective share

Front 19

marriage law, choice of law

Back 19

if valid where performed, valid everywhere; unless it would violate strong PP of a state; if invalid b/c of failure to comply with some technical reason, still valid in NY if would have complied

Front 20

divorce law, choice of law

Back 20

governed by the law of P's domicile

Front 21

defenses to choice of law

Back 21

forum will not apply procedural law of another state; public policy (not a defense to FF&C); penal (will not apply penal law of another state)

Front 22

judicial notice of other law

Back 22

courts will take judicial notice of sister state and federal law; but the law of foreign country is a *fact* which must be pleaded and proved; if can't be proved, NY ct will apply NY law, as long as no injustice

Front 23

choice of law, const'l limits

Back 23

The state chosen must have significant contacts with the parties or the subject matter of the litigation which gives it a significant interest in seeing its law applied. ("significant contacts giving a legitimate interest"); no weighing, just need to meet the test

Front 24

Interest Analysis

Back 24

Babcock approach: 1) factual contacts w/each state; 2) note diff state laws; 3) policies underlying each state's law; 4) relate facts to policies to see if state has an interest in applying its law; 5) apply the law of the state w/greatest governmental interest