Conflicts Of Law

Front 1

Bar Exam Categories for Conflicts Questions

Back 1

Personal Jurisdiction over D
- Specific
- General

Choice of law
- Horizontal = state v. state / choice of law methodologies
- Vertical = state v. federal / Erie and Supremacy Clause

Recognition of Judgment
- res judicata
- collateral estoppel/issue preclusion

Front 2

Horizontal Conflicts - 3 Approaches Generally

Back 2

First Restatement = territorial

Gov't Interests = policy based

Second Restatement = territorial with policy considerations and "most significant relationship"

Front 3

Conflict Analysis - Restatement First

Back 3

Territorial
- property = law of situs
- torts = where the last event making actor liable took place (law of the place of the wrong)
- contracts = where K was made

Front 4

Conflict Analysis - Gov't Interests

Back 4

Forum law should always govern unless convinced another state's law should apply
- Look at policies
- Evaluate contacts (are the policies relevant/represent the interests of the state)

False Conflicts = interested states law
True Conflicts = "moderate and restrained look" to find false conflict; otherwise, apply forum law
- Disinterested forum may decide to dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens where other state m/h legitimate competing interest
- if no FNC available, court can decide to make its own judgment and apply the law that most closely resembles its own

Front 5

Conflict Analysis - Restatement Second

Back 5

Consider:
- policies of section 6 (needs of interstate system; policies of forum, area of law and other state; certainty/predictability; protect party expectations)
- Connecting Factors (contacts b/t states, parties, subject matter)
- Most significant relationship / greatest interest in dispute

Front 6

Conflict Analysis - Restatement Second Torts Issues

Back 6

Consider in applying principles of section 6
- place of injury
- place where conduct causing injury happened
- domicile, residence, nationality, incorporation
- place where parties' relationship is centered

Evaluate contacts as to their relative importance to the issue

Front 7

Horizontal Conflicts - PA Hybrid Approach

Back 7

Combines Restatement Second and Governmental Interests Analyses

PA courts apply the law of the state with the greater interest in the legal issue - evaluates each state's contacts w/ the transaction

Only contacts relating to the policies/interest underlying the particular issue are relevant (quality over quantity!)

Front 8

Horizontal Conflicts - Bar Exam Answers Strategy

Back 8

Describe PA's Hybrid = combination of gov't interests and second restatement

Perform first steps of gov't interest = ID the policies b/t competing laws and compare each jdxn's policies w/ relevant contacts
- False Conflicts = interested state's law
- True Conflicts = state w/ greatest interest/most significant relationship (connecting factors evaluated under section 6 considerations)

Then compare w/ results under first restatement, gov't interests, and second restatement analysis

Front 9

Horizontal Conflicts - Specific PA Rules

Back 9

Property = law of situs (and bar examiners want you to characterize things as property where possible - i.e. dispute re: K for sale of land)

Contracts = choice of law and choice of forum clauses

Marriage = place of celebration

Corporation = state of incorporation to determine duties of O/D

Front 10

PA Rules - Choice of Law Clauses

Back 10

PA honors = parties' freedom to K

UCC = parties' choice honored so long as it bears a reasonable relation to the transaction

CL = honors choice unless chosen state has no substantial relationship to parties or transaction - and no reasonable basis for the choice OR where the law is contrary to the fundamental policies of the state that has a materially greater interest

Front 11

PA Specific Rules - Choice of Forum

Back 11

Modern view = court of proper jdxn should decline to hear a case where parties have agreed to a different forum
- agreement M/n/b unreasonable at time of litigation
- note: inconvenience does not mean unreasonable - concerned with whether the choice subverts the interests of justice

Front 12

Horizontal Conflicts - Escape Valves

Back 12

Substance vs. Procedure = characterize as procedural to keep law of forum

Characterize suit to get desired result - i.e. as property instead of as contract law

Statute of Limitations = typically procedural, BUT PA's Borrowing Statute looks at both and applies the shorter of the two

Public Police

Domicile = physical presence + intent, or state of incorporation

Front 13

Vertical Conflicts - Erie and Supremacy Clause

Back 13

Erie Doctrine = federal and state statutes conflict, federal controls as long as it's USC

FRCP governs against conflicting state rule so long as it's USC and valid under Rules Enabling Act ("arguably procedural")

Federal Common Law = governs over conflicting state so long as it does not violate aims of Erie = avoiding forum shopping and inequitable results

Klaxon v. Stentor = federal court exercising diversity M/apply conflict of laws rules of the Forum

Front 14

Conflicts - Recognition of Judgments

Back 14

1. Determine whether judgment is entitled to FFAC
- court M/h had SMJ and PJ (or full and fair opportunity to challenge)
- final judgment on the merits

2. If FFAC attaches - will rendering court give judgment Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel effect?
- Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion = prevents relitigation of entire suit where same parties (privity), same issue (T/O) and final judgment
- Collateral Estoppel/Issue Preclusion = prevents relitigation of issues in a subsequent suit if issue actually litigated and decided in, it was necessary issue to support the judgment, party against whom CE is asserted M/h been party/privity to prior action; AND party M/h had full and fair opportunity to litigate in prior proceeding

Front 15

Conflicts - Recognition of Judgements w/r/t Divorce Decrees

Back 15

FFAC if rendering state had proper jdxn and decree is valid (only need one party domiciled for it to be valid)

PA = spouse not entitled to divorce u/l at least one party domiciled for 6m pre-suit

Divisible = state can render ex parte divoce when one spouse is domiciled in state, but does not apply to ancillary matters, which makes divorce divisible - need PJ over both spouses to deal with the rest