Long Outline

Fall 2011 Ethan Moore
1
chX`X`CONFLlCT OF LAWS LONG OTLlNE

1)lnIroducIion
a) Genera||y
i) Forum usua||y app|ies iIs ru|es as Io how Io reso|ve conI|icIs.
(1)MosI oI Ihe Iime, a Iorum wi|| decide Io app|y iIs own |aw.
ii) Domic|e: Domici|iary is more speciIic Ierm Ihan residence, can on|y
have one domici|e-p|ace inIend Io be permanenI home (subjecIive
view, even iI Ihey are noI Ihere).
iii) On|y maIIers which |aw we choose iI |aws are diIIerenI-oIherwise Ihe
issue is mooI and Iorum |aw wou|d be app|icab|e.
iv) ConI|icIs issues are oIIen over|ooked and peop|e assume Iorum |aw
wi|| app|y.
(1)lI recognize in advance IhaI Ihere wi|| be a conI|icIs issue, Ihen
parIies can choose which |aw wi|| govern when conIracIing and
mosI courIs wi|| honor Ihis.

v) Pi||ars oI conI|icIs
(1)Pre|iminary Io courI proceeding-which courI shou|dJcan exercise jx.
lI courI is ab|e, shou|d iI do iI
(2)Choice oI |aw-arises when we have an ongoing courI proceeding;
issue is which |aw shou|d courI app|y
()RecogniIion and enIorcemenI oI judgmenIs. WhaI happens Io
judgmenI, i.e., res judicaIa, co||aIera| esIoppe|, Iu|| IaiIh and crediI
c|ause in sisIer sIaIe judgmenIs (does noI reach Ioreign naIion
judgmenIs)
(4)Ru|es change depending on Ihe Iorum- wi|| have ru|es re: jx and
choice oI |aw.
vi) There is some inIerp|ay re jx and choice oI |aw
(1)O|d view was IhaI on|y 1 courI shou|d be ab|e Io exercise jx in
any given dispuIe.
(a)i.e., O|d ru|e was IhaI had Io go Io home oI D in order Io sue
D. Even now Ihis is a|ways an appropriaIe Iorum. Does noI
2
necessari|y mean IhaI IhaI Iorum's |aw musI govern (IerriIoria|
dispuIe).
(2)New view is IhaI can sue in oIher p|aces depending on suIIicienI
presence, eIc.
()nder|ying goa| is IhaI Iorum se|ecIion shou|d be irre|evanI as Io
choice oI |aw-noI encourage Iorum shopping.
(4)Every Iorum has abi|iIy Io choose diIIerenI conI|icIs ru|es and many
oI Ihem have.

2)Choice oI Law, TradioIiona| Appraoch
a) The TradiIiona| Approach (The FirsI ResIaIemenI)
i) JurisdicIion-Se|ecIing Ru|es TorIs (Lex Loci De|ecIi)
(1)A|abama GreaI SouIhern RR v. Carro||: TorIs case. Persona| injury
COA. A|abama courI in 1892. CourI is aIIecIed by IradiIiona|
conI|icIs Iheory (Bea|e, 1
sI
resIaIemenI)
(a)P|ace where righI vesIsJinjury occurs and Ihis is Ihe |aw IhaI
governs. The occurrence oI Ihis |oca|izing evenI creaIes vesIed
righIs deIined by Ihe |aw oI IhaI p|ace so IhaI courIs
everywhere musI enIorce Ihose righIs.
(i) ln Iheory Ihis is good bJc iI suggesIs on|y 1 jx has auIhoriIy
Io vesI righI and we wou|d noI be Iaced wiIh a CoL.
However, in pracIice Ihis is noI easy and mighI be somewhaI
arbiIrary (especia||y in S wiIh c|ose borders). OuIcome is
diIIerenI, depending on where Ihe accidenI occurs. Case is
beIween Miss and A|abama |aw. A|abama is Iorum in Ihis
case.
(ii)SubsIanIive |aws:
1. A|abama-emp|oyer |iab|e (emp|oyer |iabi|iIy acI).
2. Miss-Emp|oyer noI |iab|e (Ie||ow servanI ru|e)-o|d ru|e
(iii)ConI|icIs ru|e-Lex |oci de|icIi is p|ace oI injury. Law governing
IorI is p|ace oI injury (Miss). A|abama conI|icIs ru|e, buI
courI app|ies Miss. |aw.
3
(iv)Resu|I-courI app|ies Miss |aw; emp|oyer noI |iab|e. Why
shou|d A|abama enIerIain Ihis case aI a||? Fu|| IaiIh and
crediI requires iI. A|abama cannoI say iI wou|d never app|y
Miss. Law, buI iI is a|so c|ear IhaI A|abama does noI a|ways
have Io app|y Miss. Law; Ihere are a |oI oI A|abama
connecIions (boIh D and P |ive in sIaIe); ComiIy noIions
Ihere cou|d be Iimes when iI is a beIIer Ior an A|abaman Io
bring a suiI in Mississippi
(v)LimiIs oI Ihe IerriIoria|iIy Iheory
1. A sovereign shou|d be Iree Io regu|aIe wiIhin iIs own
borders, buI noI ouIside iIs borders
2. BuI iI IhaI is Irue, how can A|abama be made Io app|y
Mississippi |aw? Civi| c|aims are regarded as IransiIory.
There is a disIincIion beIween IerriIoria|iIy aI Ihe |eve| oI
primary conducI, and aI Ihe |eve| oI enIorcemenI
(vi)vesIed RighIs-CourIs enIorce righIs IhaI are creaIed aI Ihe
p|ace where Ihe evenI is |oca|ized. Those righIs are Ihus
governed by Ihe |aw app|icab|e where Ihe |oca|izing evenI
occurred
1
sI
ResIaIemenI ExcepIions in TorIs
FirsI ResIaIemenI 80(2): sIandard oI care |aws Iixed by
sIaIuIe wi|| be app|ied on|y iI Ihey are ru|es oI Ihe Iorum
sIaIe.
O Hypo: Dram shop ru|es (bar owners |iab|e Ior
damages caused by paIrons served aIIer inIoxicaIed)
O Seems IhaI under Ihis ru|e l||inois courI Io enIorce l||.
dram shop ru|es againsI lndiana bar owner iI paIron
drove inIo l||inois and was invo|ved in accidenI;
whereas lnd. courI wou|d noI enIorce ru|e iI l||. bar
paIron drove inIo lnd.
O behind Ihe ru|e) buI wi|| c|ear|y noI make sense in
oIhers

4
ii) 1
sI
ResIaIemenI: ConIracIs & Misc. Areas
(1)Mi||iken v. PraII-Mass-Iorum. lssue is whaI |aw governs capaciIy Io
conIracI? P|ace where making oI Ihe K is where iI is deemed Io
be done. ni|aIera|-commencemenI oI perIormance acIs as
accepIance oI K, IhereIore perIormance given is where K is said
Io be done. Case demonsIraIes diIIicu|Iy in |oca|izing exacI p|ace
oI K.
(a)SubsIanIive |aw
(i) Mass: W cannoI enIer inIo K (K inva|id)
(ii)Maine: W capab|e oI K (K va|id)
(b)ConI|icIs ru|e: |ex |oci conIracIus: deIined as |aw oI p|ace oI
|asI acI necessary Io make a binding K

(2)1
sI
ResIaIemenI oI K
(a) 2: QuesIions oI conIracI va|idiIy are governed by Ihe |aw oI
Ihe p|ace oI conIracIing.
(b) 8: QuesIions oI conIracI perIormance are governed by Ihe
|aw oI Ihe p|ace oI perIormance.
(c) 11: "The |aw oI Ihe Iorum decides as a pre|iminary quesIion
by Ihe |aw oI which sIaIe quesIions arising concerning Ihe
IormaIion oI a conIracI are Io be deIermined. . . .
(i) Law oI Ihe Iorum decides iI |ooking aI K IormaIion (whaI iI
means Io have a K Iormed)
(ii)11 CommenI: "nder iIs ConI|icI oI Laws ru|es, in
deIermining Ihe p|ace oI conIracIing, Ihe Iorum ascerIains
Ihe p|ace in which, under Ihe genera| |aw oI ConIracIs, Ihe
principa| evenI necessary Io make a conIracI occurs.
1. ResIaIers assumed Iorum wou|d app|y genera| CL oI Ks
in deIermining where K is Iormed, buI rea| issue is whaI
iI views as Ihe deIining acI in Ihe making oI Ihe K
()Depasage: Where some oI Ihe COA can be cuI up and diIIerenI
pieces can be governed by diIIerenI |aws. S courIs do noI |ike Io
do iI very oIIen.
5
(4)P|ace oI Ihe making oI Ihe K covers capaciIy, Iorm, accenI, eIc.
Mi||iken invo|ves capaciIy and Linn invo|ves Iorm.
()lI perIorming K in a sIaIe-presumed Io need Ihe |aws oI Ihe sIaIe
in order Io perIorm, more so Ihan IormaIion. This seems more
imporIanI
(6)Rome ConvenIion (EEC ConvenIion on ConIracIua| Ob|igaIions) ArI.
9
(a)A k conc|uded beIween persons who are in Ihe same counIry is
Iorma||y va|id iI iI saIisIies Ihe Iorma| requiremenIs oI Ihe |aw
which governs iI under Ihis ConvenIion or oI Ihe |aw oI Ihe
counIry where iI is conc|uded
(b)A k conc|uded beIween persons who are in diIIerenI counIries
is Iorma||y va|id iI iI saIisIies Ihe Iorma| requiremenIs oI Ihe |aw
which governs iI under Ihis ConvenIion or Ihe |aw oI one oI
Ihose counIries
(7)Ru|e oI va|idaIion-when peop|e enIer inIo K Ihey wanI Io have
binding K. So Iry Io app|y |aw IhaI wi|| |ead Io a binding K
(8)Land is specia|. TerriIoria| |imiIaIions are exacerbaIed when |and is
invo|ved. CannoI move |and inIo oIher jx. TerriIoria| consideraIions
aIIached Io |and are sIronger IhaI Io p|ace oI IorI, p|ace oI K, eIc.
Law oI Ihe p|ace where |and is usua||y Irumps

b) Escape Devices
i) CharacIerizaIion
(1)Genera||y
(a)Ways judges have Iound Io escape bad resu|I emanaIing Irom
sIricI app|icaIion oI Ihe IerriIoria| ru|es. Way courI manipu|aIes
|aw in order Io manipu|aIe ouIcome.
(b)Jx se|ecIion ru|es are b|ind as Io ouIcome in Iheory.
(c)Domici|e-every person has aI a|| Iimes has 1 domici|e and
cannoI have more Ihan 1 aI Ihe same Iime. Once esIab|ished,
a domici|e conIinues unIi| anoIher one is esIab|ished. ln order
Io acquire a new domici|e, a person musI esIab|ish a dwe||ing
6
p|ace wiIh inIenIion oI making iI his home (menIa| and physica|
e|emenIs musI coexisI aI Ihe same Iime)
(i) Domici|e is imporIanI here bJc oI Iami|y |aw issue and
usua||y Ihis governs Iami|y re|aIionships
(d)CourIs escape |oca|izaIion ru|es adopIed by IirsI resIaIemenI.
CourI may wanI Io escape ru|es bJc oI occasiona|
happensIance naIure oI Ihe resu|I. (accidenI Iakes p|ace on 1
sIaIe, noI anoIher IhaI is very c|ose and resu|I is diIIerenI).
(e)A|so Ihere is a sense oI unIairness. Jx-se|ecIing ru|es are noI
supposed Io Iake inIo accounI Ihe ouIcome, buI iI happens and
Ihis |eads Ihem Io Iry Io geI Io a diIIerenI resu|I.
(I) CharacIerizaIion is noI a|ways an escape devise, iI is a
necessary parI oI courI proceeding. lI is when iI is used in a
manipu|aIive way IhaI iI is an escape devise. We are skepIica|
bJc Ihere are no ru|es courI Io app|y Io see which c|aim has
supremacy. CourI does Ihis bJc oI assessmenI oI reasonab|e
expecIaIions oI Ihe parIies.
(g)CharacIerizaIion SIeps
(i) 1
sI
sIep is Io characIerize issue courI is addressing
1. ls iI a IorI, K, eIc?
2. WhaI are Ihe connecIing IacIors?
. Where does COA arise?
4. WhaI is app|icab|e |aw?
(h)Three sIeps Ior escape devises:
(i) CharacIerizaIion
(ii)Loca|izaIion
(iii)App|icaIion
(2)A|abama GreaI SouIhern RR v. Carro||: CharacIerizaIion Q. lssue: ls
emp|oyer |iab|e Ior injury caused Io P by neg|igence oI P's
Ie||ow servanIs?
(a)SubsIanIive |aws:
(i) AL: Emp|oyer |iab|e (emp|oyer |iabi|iIy acI)
(ii)Miss: Emp|oyer noI |iab|e (Ie||ow servanI ru|e)
7
(b)ConI|icIs ru|e-Lex |oci de|ecIi is p|ace where injury occurred
(MS); |ex |oci conIracIus is p|ace where K was made (AL)
(c)Resu|I: CourI rejecIs characIerizaIion as a K maIIer. P was
Irying Io argue he made K in A|abama and was governed by
|aws oI AL. K incorporaIed |aws oI AL and IhereIore, wherever
K was app|icab|e conIained Ihose |aws and proIecIions IhaI
came Irom Ihose |aws. CourI did noI wanI Io consider iI a K
issue.
()Levy v. Danie|s' -Drive-CourI here is opposiIe oI Carro||. K made
in CT and K issue. K governed by CT and IhereIore CT |aws app|y
Io Ihe maIIer. lssue: ls renIa| car company |iab|e Ior injury
susIained by p|ainIiII as a resu|I oI neg|igence oI drive Io whom
company renIed Ihe car?
(a)CT Iorum. CourI deciding under CT wheIher K or IorI. lI iI is a
IorI, iI occurred in Mass, and IhereIore governed by Mass |aw.
lI is reasonab|e Io Ihink IhaI renIa| company wou|d be |iab|e
when iI is renIed in CT. This seems Iair Irom poinI oI view oI
Ihe D.
(i) Goa|s IhaI sIaIe adopIed-|ook Io whaI Iheir aims are. lI Ihey
are noI IurIhered by app|ying Ihe |aw, Ihen sIaIuIe poinIs Io
cerIain direcIion.
(ii)Legis|aIure noI on|y concerned wiIh proIecIing saIeIy oI iIs
own highways, buI a|so concerned wiIh iIs |oss a||ocaIion-CT
residenIs and CT is concerned wiIh proIecIing iIs residenIs.
(iii)Depends on Ihe concern oI Ihe sIaIuIe-is iI conducI-
regu|aIing or |oss-a||ocaIing?
(b)SubsIanIive |aw
(i) CT: RenIa| co is |iab|e by specia| sIaIuIe
(ii)Mass: RenIa| co. noI |iab|e un|ess iI renIed a deIecIive
vehic|e, which is noI Ihe case here
(c)ConI|icIs ru|e: |ex |oci de|ecIi poinIs Io Mass. Law, buI |ex |oci
conIracIus poinIs Io CT |aw.
8
(d)Resu|I: CourI says iI is a K case. CT sIaIuIe gives injured
person a righI oI acIion direcI|y as a consequence oI Ihe
conIracI oI hiring. Purpose was Io proIecI Ihe saIeIy oI IraIIic
upon Ihe highways by providing incenIive Io renIa| company Io
renI Io compeIenI persons. SIaIuIe makes |iabi|iIy oI person
renIing parI oI every renIa| car k in CT; Ihis k made in CT.
(4)Haumschi|d v. ConIinenIa| Casua|Iy-lnsurance K. Wisconsin is Ihe
Iorum. On ho|iday in CA. CourI Iaced wiIh Q as Io which |aw
app|ies. lssue: ls H amenab|e Io suiI Ior injury caused Io his W?
(a)ConI|icIs ru|e: |ex |oci de|ecIi poinIs Io CA |aw buI |ex domici||i
(Ior Iami|y |aw maIIers) poinIs Io Wisconsin |aw
(b)SubsIanIive |aws
(i) CA: Husband is noI amenab|e Io suiI (inIerspousa| immuniIy)
(ii)Wisconsin: Husband amenab|e Io suiI (no inIerspousa|
immuniIy)
(c)Resu|I: CourI separaIes ouI IorI and |ooks aI issue narrow|y.
Ca|| iI a Iami|y |aw maIIer and Ihis moves case back Io
Wisconsin. This is a reasonab|e ouIcome bJc iI enhances
predicIabi|iIy-H expecIs Io be governed by |aw in which Ihe
mariIa| re|aIionship is governed. CourI |ooks aI cases as IorI
maIIer, Ihen |ooks aI CA |aw and breadIh Io send maIIer Io
Wisconsin.
()Fo|k v. York-Ship|ey: DE is Iorum. Loss oI consorIium case. ls
acIion Ior |oss oI consorIium avai|ab|e? P argues |oca|izaIion lI
Ihis is a IorI acIion, Ihen iI invo|ves an injury Io Ihe mariIa|
re|aIionship, and IhaI injury occurred in DE where Ihe mariIa|
re|aIionship is cenIered. P a|so argues CharacIerizaIion This is a
maIIer oI Iami|y |aw and as such is governed by Ihe |aw oI Ihe
Iami|y domici|e, DE.
(a)SubsIanIive |aw:
(i) DE: Loss oI consorIium acIion avai|ab|e. WiIe wou|d recover
(ii)PA: Loss oI consorIium acIion noI avai|ab|e. WiIe wou|d noI
recover
9
(b)ConI|icIs ru|e: Lex |oci de|iciIi poinIs Io Pennsy|vania Law, buI iI
issue is characIerized as one perIaining Io marriage, Ihen |ex
domici|ii ru|e poinIs Io De|aware |aw
(c)Resu|I: CourI rejecIs boIh oI P's argumenIs and ho|ds IhaI Ihe
quesIion is pure|y one oI IorI and as such is governed by Ihe
|ex |oci de|icIi, PA. No |oss oI consorIium acIion. TorI in PA, iI
issue is characIerized as one perIaining Io marriage iI wou|d
poinI Io DE |aw.
ii) The SubsIanceJProcedure DisIincIion
(1)Genera||y
(a)The Iorum app|ies iIs own procedura| ru|es bJc oI pracIica|iIy,
convenience and cosI Avoidance
(b)se oI subsIanceJprocedure disIincIion
(i) FirsI sIep in choice-oI-|aw process-Laws Io govern
procedura| maIIers; deposiIions, service oI process, eIc.
(ii)MaIIer oI characIerizaIion-lssue "characIerized as one oI
procedure; e.g. GranI v. McAu|iIIe
(c)How much oI Ihe Ioreign |aw app|ies-Foreign |aw governs --
e.g. Mass. Law re: IorIs in Ki|berg (p|ace where accidenI
happened) buI on|y Ihose parIs IhaI are deemed "subsIanIive
(d)Examp|es oI Ru|es (sua||y) viewed as Procedura|
(i) MeIhods oI serving process;
(ii)MaIIers oI p|eading and Ihe conducI oI proceedings in courI
(iii)ProoI in courI oI a IacI a||eged as we|| as presumpIions and
inIerences Io be drawn Irom evidence (iI courIs have
diIIerenI ru|es re: weighI oI evidence mighI eIIecI ouIcome
and Ihus subsIanIive eIIecI)
(iv)LimiIaIions oI Iorum |aw on exIenI oI recovery
(v)SIaIuIes oI |imiIaIions (oIIen viewed as subsIanIive -- more
on Ihis |aIer)-conIro|s access Io courI (procedura|). As jx
measure (subsIanIive).
(vi)RighI (subsIanIive) vs. remedy (procedura|) disIincIion
10
(2)GranI v. McAu|iIIe-CA (Iorum) !'s (injured passengers), Nomina|
(adminisIraIor), Deceased IorIIeasor, TorIIeasor's esIaIe; accidenI in
AZ. lssue: WheIher a IorI acIion survives Ihe IorIIeasor's deaIh?
(a)SubsIanIive ru|es:
(i) CA: AcIion survives IorIIeasor's deaIh
(ii)AZ: AcIion does noI survive IorIIeasor's deaIh
(b)ConI|icIs ru|e: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io AZ |aw, buI iI Ihe issue
is characIerized as procedura|, or as one invo|ving Ihe
adminisIraIion oI esIaIes Ihen CA |aw app|ies as Ihe |ex Iori or
as Ihe |aw oI Ihe sIaIe where Ihe esIaIe is |ocaIed
(c)Resu|I: CourI characIerizes issues as procedura| and app|ies |ex
Iori; a|IernaIive|y, cI characIerizes issue as one oI admin. oI
esIaIes and app|ies CA |aw on IhaI ground.
()Ki|berg v. NorIhwesI Air|ines: NY: !'s (survivors), air|ine,
Deceased vicIim, TickeI purchase, Beginning oI round Irip I|ighI;
accidenI in Mass. lssue: AmounI oI recoverab|e compensaIory
damages.
(a)SubsIanIive |aw
(i) NY: Damages |imiIaIions are prohibiIed
(ii)Mass: Damages are |imiIed by sIaIuIe Io a maximum oI
S1,000
(b)ConI|icIs ru|e: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io MA |aw, buI iI Ihe issue
is characIerized as procedura| (or as subsIanIive buI
conIracIua|), Ihen NY |aw app|ies
(c)Resu|I: CourI Iinds MA |imiIaIion Io be oIIensive Io NY pub|ic
po|icy and Ihus in app|icab|e and characIerizes issue as
procedura| in order Io app|y Ihe |ex Iori. CourI wenI IurIher
here bJc decisions grounded on pub|ic po|icy are iIIy. CourI is
Irying Io change conIicIs |aw Ihey are using-Irying Io shiII Ihe
Ihinking.
11
(4)Marie v. Garrison-NY (Iorum) & p|ace oI promise. Missouri: P|ace
oI accepIance, Land IhaI is Ihe objecI oI Ihe K, . lssue: WheIher
Ihe K made was va|id as Io Iorm (SIaIuIe oI Frauds)
(a)SIaIuIe oI Irauds:
(i) NY (Iorum): "Every conIracI |invo|ving |and] sha|| be void
un|ess Ihe conIracI . . . be in wriIing
(ii)Missouri: "No acIion sha|| be broughI on a ck invo|ving |and
un|ess k is in wriIing
(b)ConI|icIs |aw: Lex |oci conIracIus poinIs Io MO |aw, buI on|y
MO subsIanIive |aw
(c)Resu|I: ReIeree ho|ds IhaI MO SoF is inapp|icab|e because iI is
procedura|; NY SoF is inapp|icab|e because iI is subsIanIive.
ConIracI is Ihus va|id!
()vesI v. SI. A|ban's PsychiaIric HospiIa|-hospiIa| ma|pracIice case.
HospiIa| is in vA; Iorum is WvA, where P is ciIizen. lssue: WheIher
|awsuiI shou|d be a||owed Io proceed in |ighI oI a vA sIaIuIe IhaI
requires review by a medica| pane| beIore resorIing Io Ihe courIs?
(a)SubsIanIive |aw:
(i) WesI vA (Iorum): LawsuiI may proceed no requiremenI oI
review by med. pane|
(ii)vA: LawsuiI may noI proceed unIi| p|ainIiII saIisIies sIaIuIory
requiremenI oI review by a medica| pane|
(b)Ru|e: lI vA sIaIuIe is subsIanIive, iI app|ies under Ihe |ex |oci
de|icIi; iI sIaIuIe is procedura|, courI need noI app|y iI.
(c)Resu|Is: CourI characIerizes vA sIaIuIe as procedura|
(conIro||ing access Io vA courIs) and reIuses Io app|y iI. vA
appea|s courI ru|ed Ihe opposiIe, buI here WvA cou|d sIi|| ru|e
Ihe way iI wanIed Io bJc iI is considered an advisory opinion
bJc Ihe appea|s courI was sp|iI. Purpose oI review pane| p|ays
a IacIor in considering Ihis case (iI iI is procedura| or
subsIanIive). AcIs as procedura| hurd|e-so maybe iI |imiIs
c|aims. n|ess Ihis is eIIecIive, Ihe subsIanIive goa| oI proIecI
hea|Ih care providers seems |ike iI wou|d he|p vA courIs. lI
12
WvA had a review pane|, Ihe courI may have goIIen ouI iI iI by
saying Ihe pane| cou|d noI ru|e on a vA medica| ma|pracIice
issue and IhaI Ihis wou|d be a subsIanIive issue and noI
procedura| in order Io geI around iI.
(d)DissenI says IhaI iI is b|aIanI proIecIionism oI WvA residenI in
conI|icI wiIh |ex de|ecIi ru|e.
(e)Posner suggesIs IhaI appropriaIe Q Io ask is whaI Ihe purpose
oI Ihe ru|e is.
(i) ls iI concerned wiIh accuracy and economy in |iIigaIion?
Then iI is procedura|
(ii)ls iI concerned wiIh channe|ing behavior ouIside Ihe
courIroom? -- Then iI is subsIanIive
iii) Renvoi
(1)Genera||y
(a)lnIerna| |aw exc|udes a jurisdicIion's conI|icIs ru|es
(b)"Who|e |aw inc|udes a jurisdicIion's conI|icI-oI-|aws ru|es
(c)sua| an escape device in CL sysIem
(d)On|y arises when diIIerenI sIaIes have diIIerenI conI|icIs ru|es
(e)REMEMBER procedure can'I be renvoied
(2) EsIaIe oI WrighI-P|ace where renvoi comes up is properIy |aw.
ProperIy is Iied Io IerriIory and iI does noI move. One oI Iew ru|es
IhaI a|| jx agree on is IhaI Ihe sIaIe where Ihe properIy siIs can
dicIaIe anyIhing re|aIing Io properIy (sa|e, eIc.) even iI decedenI
does noI wanI iI Io be. Maine is Iorum and p|ace where wi|| is
wriIIen; |and is |ocaIed in SwiIzer|and. lssue: whaI wi|| be done
wiIh properIy in SwiIzer|and bJc iI has a righI Io conIro|? ResI oI
esIaIe wi|| be governed by Maine |aw. lssue: wheIher IesIaIor's
chi|dren are enIiI|ed Io a Iorced share "againsI his wi||.
(a)SubsIanIive |aw:
(i) Maine (Iorum): TesIaIor's wi|| prevai|s; chi|dren are noI
enIiI|ed Io Iorced share
(ii)SwiIzer|and: Chi|dren are enIiI|ed Io a Iorced share.
TesIaIor's wi|| is inva|id Io exIenI iI denies Ihem IhaI share
13
(b)ConI|icI |aw:
(i) Maine: (TreaIy) Succession Io immovab|es is governed by
Ihe |aw oI Ihe siIus; does "|aw inc|ude choice-oI-|aw ru|es
(ii)SwiIzer|and: Succession is governed by |aw oI domici|e
(SwiIzer|and). BT a Ioreigner may, Ihrough a choice-oI-|aw
c|ause, subjecI his sIaIe Io his naIiona| |aw (subjecI Io
excepIions; e.g. arIs. 17 & 18 oI IreaIy)
(c)Resu|I: CourI conc|udes (1) "|aw in Ihe IreaIy inc|udes conI|icIs
ru|es; (2) Swiss conI|icIs ru|es permiI Ihe IesIaIor Io choose
governing |aw () Maine |aw governs and chi|dren geI no Iorced
share. CourI says IreaIy app|ies Io Ihe who|e |aw. CourI jusIiIies
iIse|I by saying IhaI oIher Swiss decisions are noI binding and
IhaI Ihe IreaIy's purpose is Io ensure IhaI Americans |iving in
SwiIzer|and are IreaIed as we|| as Ihe Swiss. CourI said IhaI iI
IreaIy was given eIIecI Ihe way chi|dren were arguing iI wou|d
puI Ihem aI a disadvanIage Io oIher Ioreigners. Swiss ciIizens
are |imiIed-Ihey cannoI disinheriI Iheir chi|dren. lI Ihe purpose is
Io IreaI S ciIizens as we|| as Swiss, Ihis is noI necessary. CI.
rea||y compares Americans Io oIher Ioreigners-buI he does noI
say Ihis is Ihe goa| oI Ihe IreaIy. Purpose oI conc|uding IreaIies
is Io avoid Ihese kind oI Qs bJc courI did noI rea||y ana|yze Ihe
IreaIy as iI norma||y wou|d.
()American MoIorisIs v. ARTRA-MD Iorum: lnsured IacIory and
conIaminaIion. lL: lnsured, lnsurer, lnsurance K. lssue: WheIher Ihe
insurance conIracI ob|igaIes Ihe insurer Io provide coverage?
(a)SubsIanIive Law:
(i) MD: Coverage noI provided, because conIaminaIion wou|d
noI be considered "sudden and accidenIa|
(ii)lL: Coverage provided, because conIaminaIion wou|d be
considered "sudden and accidenIa|
(b)ConI|icIs |aw:
(i) MD: Lex |oci conIracIus ru|e |eads Io lL |aw
14
(ii)lL: nder ResIaIemenI (2nd), lL wou|d app|y MD |aw bJc iI's
Ihe |ocaIion oI Ihe insured risk-MD has more signiIicanI
re|aIionship Ihan lL
(c)Resu|I: CourI adheres Io |ex |oci conIracIus buI adopIs a
"|imiIed renvoi excepIion, which permiIs iI Io consider lL
conI|icIs |aw. Assuming lL |aw wou|d reIer maIIer back Io MD,
MD cI app|ies MD subsIanIive |aw denying coverage and
dismissed. OIIen courIs are ouIcome-driven. Judges who are
Irying Io move Ihings Iorward when Ihey do noI have Iu||
agreemenI on Iheir courI do Ihis Ioo (as in ARTRA case)
(4)BraxIon v. Anco E|ecIric -NC-Iorum, P, P's emp|oyer, Emp|oymenI
Re|aIionship, D (oIher emp|oyer); vA: accidenI. lssue: WheIher,
aIIer having received workers' comp. Ihrough his own emp|oyer, P
is enIiI|ed Io a IorI acIion againsI anoIher emp|oyer, D, who, under
vA |aw, wou|d a|so be considered P's "sIaIuIory emp|oyer and
Ihus wou|d be immune Irom IorI |iabi|iIy
(a)SubsIanIive Law:
(i) NC: D is noI P's "sIaIuIory emp|oyer. Thus D is noI
responsib|e Ior WC coverage, buI is |iab|e in IorI. P may
recover in IorI
(ii)vA: D emp|oyer is P's "sIaIuIory emp|oyer. D is responsib|e
Ior WC coverage, buI is immune Irom IorI |iabi|iIy. P may
noI recover in IorI
(b)ConI|icIs |aw:
(i) NC: Lex |oci de|icIi |eads Io vA |aw; buI Ihe NC WC sIaIuIe
suggesIs app|icaIion oI NC |aw
(ii)vA: nder simi|ar circs., vA did noI app|y vA |aw buI app|ied
|aw oI Ihe sIaIe oI Ihe emp|oymenI re|aIionship
(c)Resu|I: CI acknow|edges |ex |oci de|icIi, buI Iocuses on NC WC
sIaIuIe, and conc|udes iI has Io app|y Ihe sIaIuIe. NC |aw a|so
app|icab|e Ior pub|ic po|icy reasons. Fina||y, courI emp|oys a
"renvoi raIiona|e: vA wou|d app|y NC |aw; why shou|dn'I NC
app|y iIs own |aw? Renvoi as conIirmaIory raIiona|e here. Basis
15
oI decision is IhaI iI is a NC courI and |egis|aIure has direcIed
IhaI workers comp sIaIuIe app|ies. A|so Ia|ks abouI pub|ic
po|icy.
iv) The Pub|ic Po|icy and Pena| Law ExcepIions
(1)Loucks v. SIandard Oi| (1918)-NY-Iorum, P's (survivors), Deceased
vicIim, D. Mass: accidenI. lssue: WheIher Ihe MassachuseIIs
wrongIu| deaIh sIaIuIe is oIIensive Io NY's pub|ic po|icy.
(a)SubsIanIive Law:
(i) NY: un|imiIed damages
(ii)Mass: Damages |imiIed by sIaIuIe Io a maximum oI S10,000
and minimum oI S00.
(b)ConI|icIs |aw: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io MA, buI iI MA sIaIuIe is
oIIensive Io NY pub|ic po|icy iI doesn'I app|y
(c)Resu|I: NoI repugnanI Io pub|ic po|icy. Damages |imiIaIion p|ays
no ro|e in Ihis assessmenI. nIi| |aIe 19
Ih
cenIury Ihere was no
wrongIu| deaIh recovery-sIaIuIori|y creaIed. D is IighIing Ihis
case bJc Ihey are doing business in every sIaIe and wanIs Ps
Io go Io sIaIe oI Ihe accidenI-|imiI |iabi|iIy iI iI is more diIIicu|I
Ior Ps Io sue. P says NY shou|d noI enIorce MA wrongIu|
deaIh |aw bJc Ihis wou|d vio|aIe pub|ic po|icy. CourI says IhaI
Ihe 2 |aws are noI very diIIerenI. CourI did noI wanI pub|ic
po|icy requiremenI easi|y meI.
(d)CourI gives us Ihe sIandard IesI Ior pub|ic po|icy excepIion:
(i) App|icab|e iI Ihe Ioreign |aw
1. "oIIends our sense oI jusIice or menaces Ihe pub|ic
we|Iare; or
2. "Shock|s] our sense oI jusIice; or
. "vio|aIes some IundamenIa| princip|e oI jusIice, some
preva|enI concepIion oI good mora|s, some deep rooIed
IradiIion oI Ihe common wea|
(2)Ki|berg v. NorIhwesI Air|ines-lssue: AmounI oI recoverab|e
compensaIory damages. We a|ready know Ihey wi|| app|y Ihe Mass.
|aw
16
(a)SubsIanIive Law:
(i) NY: Damages |imiIaIions are prohibiIed
(ii)Mass: Damages are |imiIed by sIaIuIe Io a maximum oI
S1,000
(b)ConI|icIs |aw: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io MA |aw, buI iI Ihe issue
is characIerized as procedura| (or as subsIanIive buI
conIracIua|), Ihen NY |aw app|ies
(c)Resu|I: CourI Iinds MA |imiIaIion Io be oIIensive Io NY pub|ic
po|icy and Ihus in app|icab|e and characIerizes issue as
procedura| in order Io app|y Ihe |ex Iori.
()Owens v. Owens-SD-Iorum, P's domici|e, D's domici|e, Car
regisIraIion; lndiana: AccidenI, P and D Iemporary residence. lssue:
WheIher P, who was injured in an lndiana accidenI whi|e riding as
a passenger in a car driven by her husband, D, shou|d recover
againsI him (and his insurer) in |ighI oI Ihe lndiana guesI sIaIuIe,
which wou|d deny recovery
(a)SubsIanIive Law:
(i) SD: No guesI sIaIuIe P recovers
(ii)lndiana: GuesI SIaIuIe P does noI recover
(b)ConI|icIs |aw: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io lndiana |aw, buI iI IhaI
|aw is repugnanI Io SD pub|ic po|icy iI shou|d noI be app|ied.
(c)Resu|I: CourI reiIeraIes |ex |oci ru|e, buI Iinds lndiana guesI
sIaIuIe repugnanI Io SD pub|ic po|icy and app|ies SD |aw. CI.
a|so bases iIs decision on SD's conIacIs & inIeresIs and
lndiana's |ack oI inIeresIs. (ParIies have re|aIionships wiIh SD)
(d)CourIs oIIen use pub|ic po|icy Io avoid harsh resu|Is
(e)Forum courI is noI ob|igaIed Io app|y Ioreign |aw iI iI Iound
IhaI |aw Io be repugnanI Io |oca| pub|ic po|icy
(I) PP excepIion is Io be consIrued narrow|y; on|y Ior IundamenIa|
jusIice or good mora|s
(4)Pena| |aw
17
(a)courIs wi|| noI app|y anoIher sIaIe's pena| |aws- reIers noI on|y
Io crimina| code buI Io any |aw designed Io punish whaI is
pena| is deIermined by Iorum sIaIe
(b)The courIs oI no counIry execuIe Ihe pena| |aws oI anoIher.
The AnIe|ope (182)
(c)Crimina| |aw choice oI |aw is merged wiIh jurisdicIion
(d)Civi| |aws wiIh pena| componenI
(i) ls |aw designed primari|y Ior Ihe vindicaIion oI pub|ic jusIice
or Ihe vindicaIion oI a privaIe righI?
v) The Foreign Tax ExcepIion
(1)Genera||y
(a)TradiIiona||y, sIaIes wi|| noI enIorce Ioreign revenue |aws
(b)Some sIaIes now have reciprociIy wiIh oIhers
(c)Revenue ru|e Ihe courIs oI one sovereign wi|| noI enIorce Ihe
Iax judgmenIs or c|aims oI anoIher sovereign
(d)Why noI enIorce revenue ru|e?
(i) SovereignIy
1. LimiI asserIion oI auIhoriIy beyond borders
2. E|iminaIe Ihe possibi|iIy oI insu|Iing a Ioreign sovereign by
reIusing Io honor Ihe Ioreign Iax ru|ing oI one sIaIe buI
noI Ihe oIher
(ii)SeparaIion oI powers
1. ConducI oI Ioreign aIIairs is reserved Io Ihe execuIive
branch (and secondari|y Ihe |egis|aIive branch)
2. Exec & |egis|aIive branches have recenI|y acIed by
conc|uding IreaIy wiIh Canada
a. TreaIy deIines meIhods oI enIorcing Ioreign Iax c|aims
b. TreaIy does noI abrogaIe Ihe Ioreign revenue ru|e

c) Proving and P|eading Foreign Law-Judicia| NoIice and ProoI oI Foreign
Law
i) Genera||y
18
(1)Foreign |aw- we are Ia|king abouI |aw oI sisIer sIaIe, as we|| as
|aw oI anoIher counIry. MosI sIaIes disIinguish Iorma||y beIween
Ioreign |aw and sisIer-sIaIes (which Ihey can app|y wiIhouI
diIIicu|Iy).
(2)ln many cases, no Q oI Ioreign |aw is raised or oIIered
ii) Ge||er v. McCown-Nv case. O|d approach Io Ioreign |aw as species oI
IacI IhaI can be proved. lssue here is properIy in Yukon and
decedenI |ived in Nv. W suggesIs she has righI oI 1J share oI
properIy in Yukon properIy under iIs |aws. No one dispuIes Yukon |aw
cou|d govern, buI she did noI p|ead or prove iI. CourI says cannoI
app|y Yukon |aw and so as a Ia|| back wi|| app|y own (Nv) |aw.
(1)CourI usua||y has 2 opIions-can dismiss who|e COA (usua||y when
P needs Ioreign |aw Ior c|aim) or can app|y iIs own |aw.
(2)P|ace oI properIy is under Yukon |aw and P's acIion is dismissed
and courI residua||y app|ies |aw oI Nv.
()O|d way oI Ioreign |aw being issue iI IacI means IhaI iI wou|d
have Io be proved by experI IesIimony (bring in Ioreign |awyer Io
IesIiIy as Io conIenI oI Ihe |aw). Governed by evidence code.
(4)TC decision usua||y disposiIive bJc iI decided issue as maIIer oI
IacI. So iI had Io be c|ear|y erroneous in order Io reverse
()ConI|icIs ru|e: Lex rei siIae (p|ace Ihe properIy is siIuaIed) poinIs
Io Yukon |aw, buI P did noI p|ead or prove iI.
(6)Many conI|icIs issues never geI raised-parIies are more
comIorIab|e app|ying Iheir own |aw. Q is rea||y when a courI sue
sponIe raises Ihe issue oI Ioreign |aw. OIIen Ihis does noI happen
and iI is usua||y noI a jx maIIer.
iii) Wa|Ion v. Arabian American Oi| Co-NY Ied courI and accidenI is in
Saudi Arabia, where D does business. CourI app|ies NY |aw. lssue is
wheIher Ihe TC abused discreIion when iI reIused Io Iake judicia|
noIice oI Saudi Arabian |aw when Ihe P who re|ied on IhaI |aw was
unwi||ing Io prove iIs conIenI?
(1)NoIion oI respondeaI superior-wou|d emp|oyer be responsib|e Ior
neg|igenI acIs oI emp|oyer-subsIanIive |aw
19
(2)Law oI Saudi Arabia is noI p|ed or proved and iI seems iI does
noI recognize respondeaI superior.
()ConI|icIs ru|e: Lex |oci de|icIi poinIs Io Saudi |aw. P does noI Iry
Io p|ead Saudi |aw bJc he can'I undersIand iI and a|so bJc iI hurIs
his case and he wou|d |ose.
(4)D's conducI-did noI p|ead Ioreign |aw bJc iI assumed IhaI Iorum
|aw was Ihe same as Ioreign |aw bJc no one proved oIherwise. D
dropped ba|| by noI proving IhaI Saudi |aw wou|d noI recognize
respondeaI superior.
()P argues IhaI Saudi |aw was uncivi|ized and courI did noI buy Ihis
bJc iI did noI wanI Io dec|are IhaI Ihe who|e counIry's |aws were
uncivi|ized.
(6)TC did noI abuse iIs discreIion by Iai|ing Io Iake judicia| noIice oI
Saudi |aw. CourI rejecIed P's p|ea Io app|y NY |aw because oI
Ihe presumpIionJIicIion IhaI Ihe 2 are idenIica| because (1) iI was
unrea|isIic in Ihis case and (2) P did noI prove IhaI Saudi Arabia
had noI |aw or IhaI iI was "uncivi|ized.
(7)Resu|I here is diIIerenI Ihan Ge||er bJc oI a shiII in mindseI and
courI Ihere had Io come Io a decision, whereas here Ihe courI
does noI have Io mainIain Ihe acIion. lI P bears burden oI prooI
and can'I mainIain case-case cannoI go Iorward.
(8)Maxim IhaI courI knows Ihe |aw-has abi|iIy Io app|y Ihe |aw and
Ihis is regime under we currenI|y operaIe wJrJI Ioreign |aw
iv) ProoI oI Ioreign |aw
(1)O|d PracIice: TreaIed as maIIer oI IacI
(a)Argued Io Ihe jury
(b)Ru|es oI evidence app|ied
(c)ExperI IesIimony usua||y required
(d)very |imiIed appe||aIe review
(2)Modern PracIice: Judges can Iake judicia| noIice oI Ioreign |aw
(a)Foreign |aw IreaIed as |aw, buI musI be ascerIained by Ihe
courI wiIh Ihe assisIance oI Ihe parIies (iI neiIher parIies
20
suggesI Ioreign |aw shou|d app|y, usua||y Ihe courI wi|| noI
make IhaI suggesIion)
(b)Judge is decision-maker
(c)P|enary appe||aIe review in mosI sIaIes (bJc iI is a maIIer oI
|aw)
(d)Possibi|iIy (in some sIaIes) oI cerIiIicaIion Io Ioreign courI
v) Ca|iIornia Evidence Code 42 & 4
(1)SecIion 42
(a)CourI may Iake judicia| noIice oI
(i) decisiona|, consIiIuIiona|, and regu|aIory |aw oI any sIaIe oI
Ihe S and oI Ihe reso|uIions and privaIe acIs oI Ihe
Congress and oI CA's |egis|aIure
(ii)oIIicia| acIs oI Ihe |egis|aIive, execuIive, and judicia|
deparImenIs oI Ihe niIed SIaIes and oI any sIaIe oI Ihe
niIed SIaIes
(iii)The |aw oI an organizaIion oI naIions and oI Ioreign naIions
and pub|ic enIiIies in Ioreign naIions
(2)SecIion 4
(a)CourI sha|| Iake judicia| noIice oI any maIIer speciIied in 42
iI a parIy requesIs iI and
(b)Gives each adverse parIy suIIicienI noIice AND
(c)Furnishes Ihe cI wiIh suIIicienI inIormaIion Io enab|e iI Io Iake
judicia| noIice
(d)ParIies have responsibi|iIy Io puI courI on noIice IhaI iI is a
Ioreign issue.
(e)CA does noI disIinguish beIween Ioreign sIaIes and sisIer
sIaIes. MosI sIaIes has Iaking judicia| noIice oI oIher S sIaIe's
|aw as mandaIory buI Ioreign non-S jx as opIion and Ihis
makes a diIIerence in appe||aIe review.
vi) Federa| Ru|e oI Civi| Procedure 44.1
(1)ParIy inIending Io raise an issue concerning Ioreign |aw sha|| give
noIice by p|eadings or oIher wriIIen noIice;
21
(2)CourI may consider any re|evanI maIeria| or source (inc|uding buI
noI |imiIed Io evidence presenIed by parIies)
()CourI's deIerminaIion sha|| be made as a maIIer oI |aw-courI can
inIorm iIse|I

d) Modern Choice-oI-Law Approaches
i) lnIroducIion-HisIory
(1)Wa|Ier Whee|er Cook (187 194)
(a)DeconsIrucIed Ihe IradiIiona| Iheory
(i) FirsI ResIaIemenI's goa|s oI cerIainIy, predicIabi|iIy, and
uniIormiIy were i||usory bJc oI escape devices IhaI courIs
used
(ii)AcIua| judicia| pracIice did noI reI|ecI |aw's direcIives
(iii)Simp|isIic sysIem cou|d noI provide guidance Ior comp|ex
CoL prob|ems
(b)Recommended IhaI an "approach is beIIer Ihan a Iixed sysIem
oI ru|es
(c)SuggesIed IhaI judges make a wise choice beIween conI|icIing
ru|es
(2)David F. Cavers (1902-1986)
(a)ConIenI-b|ind choice oI |aw prec|uded Ihe making oI inIe||igenI
choices
(b)Choice oI |aw shou|d be dicIaIed by se|ecIing Ihe |aw IhaI
wou|d produce jusIice in Ihe individua| case
(c)LaIer he arIicu|aIed "princip|es oI reIerence (reIreaIed Irom
above).
()Brainerd Currie (1912-196)
(a)Pioneered governmenIa| "inIeresI ana|ysis
(b)ShorIhand version:
(i) Norma||y a Iorum wi|| app|y iIs own |aw
(ii)lI Iwo seIs oI |aws cou|d possib|y app|y, Ihe courI shou|d
inquire inIo Ihe po|icies expressed in Ihose |aws
22
(iii)lI one sIaIe has an inIeresI in Ihe app|icaIion oI iIs |aw, and
Ihe oIher sIaIe has none, IhaI sIaIe's |aw shou|d app|y
("Ia|se conI|icI)
(iv)lI boIh sIaIes are inIeresIed, Ihe courI shou|d engage in a
"moderaIe and resIrained inIerpreIaIion Io Iry Io e|iminaIe
Ihe conI|icI
(v)lI, upon reconsideraIion, Ihe courI Iinds IhaI a conI|icI
beIween Ihe Iwo |egiIimaIe inIeresIs oI Ihe sIaIes is
unavoidab|e, Ihe courI shou|d app|y Ihe |aw oI Ihe Iorum.
("Irue conI|icI)
ii) Ear|y approaches, inc|uding "CenIer oI GraviIy
(1)AuIen v. AuIen-K case. NY courI. W is in Eng|and (where Ihey
|ived), H |eaves and geIs divorce in Mexico and goes Io NY. She
Io||ows him and geIs seII|emenI K Ior kids. He pays a Iew Iimes,
Ihen quiIs. She Ihen sues in Eng|and Io Iry Io geI separaIion and
a|imony. W c|aims she sued in order Io enIorce, raIher Ihan
repudiaIe K. She Ihen goes Io NY Io Iry Io geI back paymenI.
(a)lssue is did Ihe iniIiaIion oI Ihe Eng|ish acIion consIiIuIe a
rescission oI Ihe NY agreemenI? lssue bJc as parI oI K she
promised she wou|d noI sue him.
(b)nder |ex |oci conIracIus, |aw oI NY shou|d app|y Io K. nder
NY she breached. nder Eng|ish she did noI
(c)CourI uses cenIer oI graviIy approach. Finds IhaI, in |ighI oI iIs
mu|Iip|e conIacIs, Eng|and is Ihe "cenIer oI graviIy oI Ihe
dispuIe and is Ihe sIaIe wiIh Ihe "greaIer concern in app|ying
iIs |aw. Eng|ish |aw shou|d govern. CourI wanIs Io IurIher
Iheory oI Ihis approach Io CoL and wanIs her Io win.
(d)NY is Ihe H's domici|e-we now Ihis bJc courI has jx over him.
P|ace where H made paymenIs is NY, courI maybe |ooks aI Ihis
as noI as imporIanI as p|ace where W receives paymenIs
(Eng|and).
23
(e)MenIion oI expecIaIions oI Ihe parIies-boIh parIies assumed
IhaI Eng|ish |aw wou|d govern Ihe W's insIiIuIion oI a separaIion
acIion.
(2)Haag v. Barnes-K case. NY courI. SecreIary has aIIair wiIh boss
and has chi|d. ln reIurn Ior no paIerniIy suiIs, he agrees Io pay
supporI Ior chi|d. Liason in NY, she goI paymenIs in NY. D is in l|
and K is in l|
(a)K had choice oI |aw sIipu|aIion. Choice oI |aw c|ause said l| |aw
governed, buI courI recognized Ihe superior bargaining oI Ihe
D. Reason courI wenI Ihrough conI|icIs ana|ysis bJc parIy
auIonomy was noI as Iirm|y enIrenched as iI is now. A|so, courI
recognized Ihis as a case in which iI cou|d IurIher Iheir goa| oI
changing Ihe |aw.
(b)lssue is shou|d Ihe lL k be enIorced as wriIIen, or shou|d NY
|aw app|y wiIh possibi|iIy oI modiIying Ihe k and increasing D's
ob|igaIions? ls NY pub|ic po|icy re chi|d supporI saIisIied or
oIIended by Ihe enIorcemenI oI Ihe lL conIracI?
(c)Resu|Is Irom app|icaIion oI NY is noI necessari|y a given and
courI surmises no increase in paymenIs.
(d)CourI here emphasizes paymenIs made in l|. (IoIa||y diIIerenI
Irom AuIen)
(e)CourI Iinds IhaI Ihe "cenIer oI graviIy oI Ihe dispuIe was in
l||inois and Ihe agreemenI shou|d be enIorced as wriIIen. ThaI
being so, Ihe agreemenI acIs as a bar Io P's IurIher c|aims Ior
supporI. The courI imp|iciI|y conc|udes IhaI Ihis is a "Ia|se
conI|icI when iI says IhaI Ihe agreemenI had more Ihan
saIisIied Ihe sIandards oI NY |aw
(I) Prob|em wiIh Ihis approach is IhaI how do we weigh cerIain
conIacIs and how do we decide which conIacIs Io weigh?
iii) Po|icy-Based Ana|yses
(1)Genera||y
(a)A|| oI Ihe approaches have in common IhaI Ihey give
consideraIion Io Ihe po|icies under|ying Ihe |aws.
24
(b)CourIs sIi|| IreaI cross border cases diIIerenI|y Irom domesIic
cases.
(c)Ask iI cerIain po|icy shou|d app|y Io Ihis case and whaI was Ihe
purpose behind Ihe |aw in genera|. ln idenIiIying govI inIeresI,
you can ascerIain wheIher IhaI |aw shou|d app|y Io IhaI case.
(d)Process resu|Is in 1 oI (or 4) scenarios
(i) Fa|se conI|icIs (easy)
1. A|so inc|udes cases where |aws are idenIica| or resu|Is
are same buI |aw diIIers
(ii)ApparenI Irue conI|icI-iI a|Ier inIerpreIaIion (mu|IisIaIe case)
mighI be ab|e Io read ouI conI|icI
(iii)True conI|icI (hard)-boIh sIaIes have an inIeresI-how do we
decide which |aw shou|d app|y? Curie said in Iie-breaker
Iorum |aw app|ies
(iv)nprovided Ior case (kind oI hard)-neiIher jx is inIeresIed
(e)A|| modern approaches have some sorI oI inIeresI ana|ysis in
Ihem
(2)Fa|se ConI|icIs (Common-Domici|e TorIs)
(a)Babcock v. Jackson-Mix oI cenIer oI graviIy wiIh inIeresI
ana|ysis. This is a IorI case wiIh D and P Irom NY. The
Irave|ed inIo Canada and goI inIo accidenI. P sued and under
Canadian |aw COA noI permiIIed, buI under S iI is
(i) CourI |ooked aI Ihe inIeresIs IhaI NY had in a||owing peop|e
Io recover and Canada's reasons Ior exc|uding and decided
Canada was noI inIeresIed bJc iI was concerned wiIh Ia|se
insurance c|aims.
(ii)Common domici|iary cases |ead Io easier ouIcomes bJc noI
compeIing beIween sIaIes Io proIecI iIs domici|iaries. Cases
are harder when Ihere are sp|iI domici|iaries.
(iii)NY po|icy: NY's Iai|ure Io enacI a guesI-sIaIuIe or |imiI IorI
recovery reI|ecIs a |oss-a||ocaIion judgmenI IhaI vicIims oI
IraIIic accidenIs shou|d be proIecIed (even iI Ihey are
25
guesIs) by ho|ding drivers accounIab|e Ior Ihe accidenIs Ihey
cause.
(iv)NY inIeresI: Here boIh vicIim and driver are NY
domici|iaries. Hence NY inIeresI in app|ying iIs |oss-
a||ocaIion ru|e Io proIecI Ihe passenger aI Ihe expense oI
Ihe driver.
(v)OnIario po|icy: ProIecI insurer Irom co||usion beIween driver
and passenger. Trying Io proIecI drivers who were Irying Io
do a good Ihing by driving peop|e.
(vi)OnIario inIeresI: lnsurer here is noI an OnIario insurer.
Hence, OnIario noI inIeresIed. Has inIeresI in making sure
insurance is aIIordab|e Ior iIs residenIs.
(b)ConducI regu|aIion v. Loss a||ocaIion
(i) Po|icy behind Ihe ru|e is imporIanI
1. ConducI regu|aIion ru|es operaIe IerriIoria||y
a. We assume NY wanIs Io proIecI NYers, buI Ihis mighI
noI a|ways be accuraIe.
2. Loss disIribuIion ru|es mighI noI operaIe IerriIoria||y
a. Ru|es Iend Io accompany domici|iaries
b. TerriIoria| conIacIs can sIi|| be imporIanI, buI |ess so
(c)Rong Yao Zhou v. JenniIer Ma|| ResIauranI-Pure inIeresI
ana|ysis case. lnIroduces concepI oI dram shop acI. Ps-vicIims
and D is resIrauranI owner. P|ace oI conducI oI serving a|coho|
was in DC. AccidenI in MD. lssue: is resIauranI owner |iab|e Ior
injury caused by his drunk cusIomers??
(i) ln DC-Yes. Dram Shop AcI provides IhaI a Iavern-owner
who serves |iquor Io an apparenI|y inIoxicaIed cusIomer.
(ii)ln MD-No, Ihe Iavern-owner is noI civi||y |iab|e, a|Ihough he
may be crimina||y |iab|e
(iii)Loss a||ocaIion here, buI a|so conducI regu|aIing bJc Iavern
owners musI govern pracIice iI Ihey know Ihey are on Ihe
hook Ior paying |iabi|iIy.
26
(iv)DC po|icy: To deIer Iavern owners Irom serving excess
|iquor, andJor Io compensaIe Ihe vicIims oI accidenIs caused
by Ihe drunks.
(v)DC inIeresI: DC inIeresIed on boIh grounds. Tavern is in
DC and conducI occurred Ihere; vicIims are DC domici|iaries.
(vi)MD po|icy: ProIecI Iavern owners Irom Ihe Iinancia| burden
oI civi| |iabi|iIy.
(vii) MD inIeresIed: No? MD Iavern or owner invo|ved
here. Hence MD noI inIeresIed
iv) The Second ResIaIemenI (Fa|se ConI|icIs)
(1)2
nd
ResIaIemenI
(a)SecIion 6
(i) SecIion 6(1) A courI wi|| Io||ow a sIaIe's sIaIuIe on choice oI
|aw insoIar as iI is ConsIiIuIiona|
(ii)very Iew sIaIes have choice-oI-|aw sIaIuIes (on|y Louisiana
and Oregon)
1. Means mosI sIaIe |egis|aIures have |egis|aIed abouI
choice oI |aw. A|| judge-made.
(iii)SecIion 6(2) When Ihere is no such direcIive, IacIors
re|evanI Io Ihe choice oI Ihe app|icab|e ru|e inc|ude:
1. The needs oI Ihe inIersIaIe and inIernaIiona| sysIems
2. The re|evanI po|icies oI Ihe Iorum
. The re|evanI po|icies oI oIher inIeresIed sIaIes and Ihe
re|aIive inIeresIs oI Ihose sIaIes in Ihe deIerminaIion oI
Ihe parIicu|ar issue
4. The proIecIion oI jusIiIied expecIaIions
. The basic po|icies under|ying Ihe parIicu|ar Iie|d oI |aw
6. CerIainIy, predicIabi|iIy, and uniIormiIy oI resu|I
7. Ease in Ihe deIerminaIion and app|icaIion oI Ihe |aw Io
be app|ied
a. The secIion 6(2) IacIors are noI |isIed in any hierarchy
b. The IacIors inc|ude inIeresI ana|ysis princip|es as we||
as oIher concerns
27
c. SecIion 6(2) works in conjuncIion wiIh subjecI-speciIic
secIions Io idenIiIy Ihe sIaIe wiIh Ihe "mosI signiIicanI
re|aIionship
(b)BiggesI prob|em wiIh 2nd resIaIemenI is |ack oI direcIion
(c)ReIains characIerizaIion prob|em-i.e., musI Iigure ouI iI iI is a
IorI or K case. A|so, Ihe p|ace oI injury in IorIs, p|ace oI K is
sIarIing poinI, eIc.
(d)2
nd
resIaIemenI was in response Io criIicism oI 1
sI
resIaIemenI.
Has a p|ura|iIy oI accepIance by Ihe S-bJc 2
nd
resIaIemenI
a||ows judge Io geI Io whaIever resu|I he wanIs (Ioo cynica|?).
Does permiI judges Io engage in ad hoc ana|ysis, buI is iI
worse Ihan any oIher approach?
(2)BryanI v. Si|verman-CourI app|ies 2
nd
resIaIemenI buI deIermines
IhaI CO is noI inIeresIed in ouIcome, buI AZ is. SecIion 6 IacIors
can eiIher bo|sIer or undermine Ihe presumpIion. CO p|ace oI
accidenI Irom sma|| p|ane Irom AZ. 1 P is Irom NM, 1 Irom TX
and 1 Irom AZ. TickeIs purchased in CO. WhaI |aw governs
compensaIory and puniIive damages?
(a)CompensaIory damages-un|imiIed in AZ and TX and |imiIed in
CO.
(b)PuniIive-yes in a|| sIaIes, buI CO
(c)Forum is AZ, presumpIion IhaI Iorum |aw wi|| app|y, buI can be
overcome. Here, Ps wou|d raIher have AZ |aw Ihan CO.
(d)CourI conc|udes IhaI, in |ighI oI iIs conIacIs and po|icies, AZ
has Ihe mosI signiIicanI re|aIionship. AZ |aw app|ies Ior boIh
compensaIory and puniIive damages and wiIh regard Io a||
Ihree p|ainIiIIs.
(e)CourI's ana|ysis-courI sIarIs aI mosI speciIic secIion
(i) SecIion 178 (Damages Ior WrongIu| DeaIh Cases)
1. App|icab|e |aw is IhaI se|ecIed by app|icaIion oI SecIion
17
(ii)SecIion 17 (WrongIu| DeaIh)
28
1. Loca| |aw oI p|ace oI injury deIermines Ihe righIs and
|iabi|iIies oI Ihe parIies un|ess, wiIh respecI Io Ihe
parIicu|ar issue, some oIher sIaIe has a more signiIicanI
re|aIionship under Ihe princip|es sIaIed in SecIion 6
(iii)SecIion 14(2) (Genera| TorI Choice-oI-Law Princip|es)
1. P|ace oI lnjury -CO
2. P|ace oI conducI causing injury-? Do noI know Ior sure
where (CO or AZ)
. Domici|e oI p|ainIiII and deIendanI-1P, D in AZ, oIher Ps
in NM and TX
4. P|ace oI Ihe re|aIionship beIween Ihe parIies-CourI p|aces
re|aIionship in CO, where IickeI was purchased.
(iv)Re|evanI po|icies oI Ihe Iorum
1. CO decided noI Io make puniIive damages avai|ab|e,
possib|y bJc iI is proIecIing CO deIendanIs Irom |arge
verdicIs.
(v)Ps are noI residenIs oI CO-so courI said CO is indiIIerenI Io
Iheir compensaIion, buI CO has sIrong po|icy oI proIecIing
Ds-courI reads in P's proIecIion, wiIhouI considering I|ip
sides oI Ihis. They assume CO is noI inIeresIed bJc Ihey
|ook aI iI Irom P's perspecIive. However, Ihis resu|I mighI
noI be someIhing CO |ikes and iIs inIeresIs noI adequaIe|y
Iaken inIo accounI.
(vi)ln IorIs cases iI is noI unusua| Io dismiss wiIh cerIainIy,
predicIabi|iIy, or uniIormiIy oI resu|I
v) The "BeIIer Law; Recap on Common-Domici|e Cases
(1) diIIerenI modern approaches
(a)lnIeresI ana|ysis (Curie)
(b)lnIeresI ana|ysis in 2
nd
resIaIemenI
(c)LeI|ar's beIIer |aw
(i) A|| approaches |ead Io same direcIion in common domici|iary
cases
29
(2)Mi|kovich v. Saari-MinnesoIa case. GuesI sIaIuIe IhaI cou|d shie|d
D Irom |iabi|iIy. D and P are OnIario residenIs and OnIario has
guesI sIaIuIe. AccidenI in Minn (no guesI sIaIuIe). Law oI domici|e
wou|d noI a||ow recovery. lssue is D amenab|e Io suiI in |ighI oI
Ihe OnIario guesI sIaIuIe which immunizes her Irom |iabi|iIy in
cases where she is noI gui|Iy oI gross neg|igence?
(a)P sued under Minn |aw and courI uses beIIer |aw ana|ysis and
conc|udes Minn |aw is beIIer. ses raIiona|e IhaI iI has inIeresI
oI adminisIering jusIice-Ihis is a IransparenI raIiona|e and is noI
convincing.
(b)CourI app|ies MN |aw based on (a) Ihe Iorum's inIeresI and (b)
iIs "preIerence Ior whaI is regarded as Ihe beIIer ru|e oI |aw
(which happens Io be MN's |aw). The Iorum's inIeresIs are: (i)
ensuring paymenI oI |oca| medica| bi||s incurred as a resu|I oI
Ihe accidenI and (ii) iIs inIeresI as a "jusIice-adminisIering sIaIe
in seeing IhaI iIs sIandards oI jusIice are Io||owed in reso|ving
dispuIes wiIh subsIanIia| MN connecIions.
(c)Does courI have Ihe auIonomy Io choose Ihe beIIer |aw IhaI is
noI Ihe |aw oI Ihe sIaIe? ls Ihis Iaking a |egis|aIive acIion iI is
noI a||owed Io have? lI courI had said IhaI OnIario |aw shou|d
app|y, Ihen iI wou|d be |egis|aIing-so Ihis is a prob|em. Hard Ior
courI Io say IhaI even Ihough |egis|aIure has spoken, OnIario
|aw is beIIer so iI decided Io app|y iI. This is a prob|em wiIh
Ihe beIIer |aw approach. BeIIer |aw approach seems Io do
away wiIh any pub|ic po|icy raIiona|e.
(d)There are more conIacIs in OnIario, buI courI argued IhaI
medica| bi||s and care were in Minn and courI said incenIive Ior
Minn Io care Ior vicIims meanI Minn |aw shou|d app|y. NoI an
insigniIicanI inIeresI, buI shou|d iI Irump a|| oI Ihe oIher OnIario
inIeresIs?
(e)DissenI Ihinks Ihe P Iorum shopped and does noI |ike Ihe
resu|I. lI Ihey sIayed in OnIario courI, he Ihinks iI wou|d have
30
app|ied OnIario |aw. BuI, we wou|d need Io know OnIario's
choice oI |aw ru|es beIore deciding Ihis.
()LeI|ar's Choice-lnI|uencing ConsideraIions:
(a)PredicIabi|iIy oI resu|Is
(b)MainIenance oI inIersIaIe and inIernaIiona| order
(c)Simp|iIicaIion oI Ihe judicia| Iask
(d)AdvancemenI oI Ihe Iorum's governmenIa| inIeresIs
(e)App|icaIion oI Ihe beIIer ru|e oI |aw-Ihis is Ihe rea| Iocus bJc
Ihe oIher 4 are Iami|iar. LeI|ar argued Ihis is on|y app|icab|e Io
some cases, buI courIs Iocus on Ihis a|ways.
(i) ln near|y every case IhaI app|ies Ihe beIIer |aw approach,
courI has app|ied Iorum |aw. AnoIher way oI giving
advanIage Io Iorum?
(4)Common-Domici|e Cases
(a)ln near|y every case invo|ving p|ainIiIIs and deIendanIs wiIh a
common domici|e, Ihe courI app|ied Ihe |aw oI Ihe common
domici|e.
(b)This was Ihe resu|I regard|ess oI Ihe choice-oI-|aw meIhodo|ogy
emp|oyed by Ihe courI.
(c)ln Ihose cases in which Ihe courI did noI app|y Ihe |aw oI Ihe
common domici|e, Ihe courI usua||y app|ied Ihe (1) pro-p|ainIiII
|aw (2) oI Ihe Iorum
vi) True ConI|icIs lnIeresI Ana|ysis (ConIracIs)
(1)Li|ienIha| v. KauIman- lnvo|ves a spendIhriII sIaIuIe. Where a sIaIe
appoinIs a guardian Ior someone who keeps geIIing inIo debI.
Guardian can void Ks IhaI spendIhriII enIers inIo, so as noI Io geI
spendIhriII's Iami|y in Iinancia| Iroub|e
(a)D is Irom Oregon, which has spendIhriII |aw. He wenI Io CA,
enIered inIo a |oan K and Ihen D deIau|Ied. P is Irying Io geI
S back and D is Irying Io convince Oregon courI IhaI Oregon
|aw shou|d app|y.
(b)These cases happen when more Ihan 1 sIaIe has inIeresI in
having Iheir |aw app|y.
31
(c)Oregon courI does noI Ihink IhaI Oregon spendIhriII |aw is a
good |aw, buI Ihey are hampered by Ihe previous case-iI Ihey
|eI CA P recover Ihey are somehow giving a beneIiI Io Ihe CA
P IhaI Ihe Oregon P did noI geI in prior case. CourI comes Io
raIiona| conc|usion IhaI CA |aw cou|d app|y, buI Ihey are
consIrained by Oregon po|icy, so ru|e IhaI Oregon |aw app|ies
(d)Oregon's po|icy is IhaI iI proIecIs spendIhriII's Iami|y and
u|IimaIe|y sIaIe we|Iare Iunds. lNTERESTED. OIher OR inIeresIs
are subordinaIed by Ihe spendIhriII ru|e: enIorcing conIracIs;
proIecIing peop|e Irom Iraud; promoIing OR's repuIaIion as a
sIaIe IhaI ho|ds parIies Io Iheir conIracIs and Ihus encouraging
Ioreigners Io do business wiIh Oregonians
(e)CA po|icies are IhaI Iheir |aw proIecIs Ca|iIornia crediIor and
conIracIs va|id|y made in IhaI sIaIe. lNTERESTED
(I) CourI app|ies OR |aw and dec|ares Ihe conIracI unenIorceab|e.
This is a Irue conI|icI in which boIh sIaIes are inIeresIed. ln
such a case, Ihe "pub|ic po|icy oI Oregon shou|d prevai|, and
Ihe |aw oI OR shou|d be app|ied; Ihus, we shou|d app|y IhaI
choice-oI-|aw ru|e IhaI wi|| advance Ihe po|icies or inIeresIs oI
Oregon
(g)CourIs are insIrumenIs oI sIaIe po|icy. The Oregon |egis|aIure
has adopIed a po|icy Io avoid possib|e hardship Io an OR
spendIhriII's Iami|y and Io avoid possib|e expendiIure oI OR
pub|ic Iunds IhaI mighI occur iI Ihe spendIhriII is required Io
pay his ob|igaIions. ln |iIigaIion OR courIs are Ihe appropriaIe
insIrumenI Io enIorce Ihis po|icy.
(h)This case is an i||usIraIion oI Ihe consIrainIs oI inIeresI ana|ysis
when you have a Irue conI|icI. Once CourI idenIiIies Oregon as
inIeresIed, Ihey say who are we Io second-guess Ihe Oregon
|egis|aIure-noI our job Io change Ihe |aw.
(i) CriIicism oI inIeresI ana|ysis-Ihere is Iorum IavoriIism.
vii)True ConI|icIsJResIrained lnIerpreIaIion (ApparenI ConI|icIs) (ConIracIs)
(1)Traynor's approach
32
(a)lnsIead oI auIomaIica||y app|ying |aw oI Iorum, can you
approach maIIer in diIIerenI way-moderaIe and resIrained
inIerpreIaIion. Can you reassess Ihe sIaIes' inIeresIs so IhaI 1
sIaIe's inIeresIs Ia||s away and Ihen app|y |aw oI on|y inIeresIed
sIaIe.
(2)Peop|e v. One 19 Ford vicIoria-D purchased car in TX and had
chaIIe| morIgage. He wenI across sIaIe |ines inIo CA, where car
was used Ior i||ega| purposes. lssue is whaI is going Io happen Io
Ihe inIeresI in Ihe car? Car is parIia||y owned by a bank, and Ihey
wanI Iheir parI oI Ihe car.
(a)CA's |aw says a car used Io IransporI narcoIics sha|| be
IorIeiIed Io Ihe sIaIe. The IorIeiIure inc|udes Ihe inIeresIs oI
Ihird parIies, such as morIgagees, un|ess Ihey show IhaI Ihey
conducIed a reasonab|e invesIigaIion oI Ihe morIgagor's
characIer. No such showing here; hence, morIgagee's inIeresI
is subjecI Io IorIeiIure. TXhas no such sIaIuIe and Ihus
morIgagee's inIeresI is noI subjecI Io IorIeiIure.
(b)CI uses inIeresI ana|ysis, buI wiIh "en|ighIened inIerpreIaIion oI
Iorum |aw
(c)CA's po|icies: To deIer Ihe use oI cars Ior Ihe IransporIaIion
oI narcoIics lNTERESTED. TX's po|icies: To proIecI Ihe Texas
morIgagee and morIgages va|id|y esIab|ished in IhaI sIaIe --
lNTERESTED
(d)Currie wou|d say app|y Iorum |aw-CA, buI Traynor did noI do
Ihis. Re-inIerpreIaIion: ln Ihe absence oI conIrary |anguage, iI
wou|d be unreasonab|e and unIair (conIrary Io Ihe po|icy oI
proIecIing jusIiIied expecIaIions) Io inIerpreI Ihe CA sIaIuIe as
being app|icab|e Io ouI-oI-sIaIe IransacIions. ln IacI, Ihe
sIaIuIe's |anguage, especia||y iIs 19 amendmenIs, suggesI
IhaI Ihe sIaIuIe was noI inIended Io app|y Io non-CA
IransacIions.
(e)CourI says CA sIaIuIe inapp|icab|e and Ihus TX |aw governs.
MorIgagee's inIeresI is expecIed Irom IorIeiIure.
33
()BernkranI v. Fow|er-P boughI aparImenI and owed S Io person
who boughI iI. Then P wanIed S sooner and had Ihem IakeouI a
diIIerenI |oan and promised Io puI in his wi|| IhaI he wou|d Iorgive
whaIever amounI oI Ihe |oan remained aI Iime oI his deaIh.
(ConsideraIion Ior Ihe change). No Q IhaI Ihis was done. Nv Ps;
decedenI died in CA.
(a)CA sIaIuIe oI Irauds renders unenIorceab|e an ora| promise Io
make a wi||. Nv sIaIuIe oI Irauds |arguab|y] inapp|icab|e Io Ihis
case. Ora| promise enIorceab|e. Loan secured by inIeresI in
properIy. lssue is Ihe ora| promise Io make a wi|| enIorceab|e?
(b)CourI uses inIeresI ana|ysis, buI wiIh "en|ighIened inIerpreIaIion
oI Iorum |aw
(c)CA's po|icies: Io proIecI Ihe esIaIes oI CA decedenIs Irom
poIenIia||y Iraudu|enI c|aims lNTERESTED. Nv's po|icies: Io
proIecI p|ainIiIIs and conIracIs va|id|y made in Nv --
lNTERESTED
(d)Re-inIerpreIaIion- ln Ihe absence oI conIrary |anguage, iI wou|d
be unreasonab|e and unIair Io inIerpreI Ihe CA sIaIuIe as being
app|icab|e Io non-CA IransacIions. The po|icy oI proIecIing
jusIiIied expecIaIions, which is a common po|icy oI boIh sIaIes,
mi|iIaIes sIrong|y againsI app|ying Ihe CA sIaIuIe Io Ihis Nv
promise. Ps cou|d noI have anIicipaIed Ihe app|icaIion oI CA
|aw because, even iI aI Ihe Iime oI Ihe promise Ihe promisor
was domici|ed in CA (which is doubIIu|), Ihere was no
assurance IhaI he wou|d reIain his CA domici|e unIi| deaIh. He
cou|d have moved Io any oIher sIaIe. Ps cou|d noI comp|y
wiIh Ihe |aws oI a|| 49 sIaIes
(e)Resu|I is IhaI CA sIaIuIe he|d inapp|icab|e. Nv |aw app|ies.
Promise is enIorceab|e.
viii) True ConI|icIs (Sp|iI Domici|e lnIrasIaIe TorIs)
(1)FosIer v. LeggeII-KenIucky (Iorum) is |ocaIion oI P. D is emp|oyed
Ihere and a|so has residence Ihere. D's domici|e is in Ohio,
accidenI occurs Ihere and car is regisIered Ihere. lnIrasIaIe bJc
34
IorI occurs enIire|y in 1 sIaIe, buI parIies are Irom diIIerenI sIaIes.
lssue: is D amenab|e Io suiI in |ighI oI Ihe Ohio guesI sIaIuIe IhaI
immunizes hosI-drivers Irom |iabi|iIy?
(a)KenIucky has no guesI sIaIuIe. P is noI denied recovery
mere|y because oI her sIaIus as a graIuiIous guesI. Ohio has a
guesI sIaIuIe. HosI driver is immune Irom |iabi|iIy vis-a-vis his
graIuiIous guesIs
(b)KenIucky's approach is |ex Iori- (Iorum IavoriIism approach)-|aw
oI Iorum app|ies un|ess Ihere is a good reason why iI shou|d
noI app|y. A|igned wiIh inIeresI ana|ysis, buI diIIerenI in iIs
abso|uIe c|ariIy.
(c)CourI app|ies KY |aw. Reasons given: "Ihe courI's primary
responsibi|iIy is Io Io||ow iIs own subsIanIive |aw. The basic |aw
is Ihe |aw oI Ihe Iorum, which shou|d noI be disp|aced wiIhouI
va|id reasons. ln Ihe case aI bar, conIacIs wiIh KY were
numerous and signiIicanI. lI Ihere are signiIicanI conIacIs -- noI
necessari|y Ihe mosI signiIicanI conIacIs -wiIh KY, Ihe KY |aw
shou|d be app|ied.
(d)Forum IavoriIism is appea|ing Io some judges-iI is easier.
(a)CourI cou|d have deIermined IhaI Ihis was noI rea||y a Irue
conI|icI wiIh Ohio's inIeresI in proIecIing him |imiIed bJc he
spenI mosI Iime in KenIucky and Ihus a Ia|se conI|icI.
(e)On|y sp|iI domici|e IorI case IhaI app|ied |aw oI P, when D's
domici|e and accidenI occurred in oIher sIaIe. Any oIher courI
wou|d have app|ied Ohio |aw
(2)Cipo||a v. Shaposka-D and P were c|assmaIes and D gave P a
ride. There was a car accidenI in De|aware. Car was owned by P's
IaIher and he was DE residenI; passenger was PA residenI. DE
guesI sIaIuIe, which wou|d bar recovery, whereas PA does noI
have a guesI sIaIuIe. lssue is which sIaIe's |aw governs D's
immuniIy Io suiI?
(a)CourI's approach is mixed. lnIeresI ana|ysis coup|ed wiIh
re|iance on Cavers' princip|es
35
(b)PA's po|icies- ProIecI vicIims oI a IraIIic accidenI even iI Ihey
are graIuiIous guesIs lNTERESTED. DE's po|icies- ProIecI
hosI-drivers and Iheir insurers -- lNTERESTED
(c)CourI says "The IacI IhaI Ihe accidenI occurred in DE is noI a
re|evanI conIacI because Ihe De|aware sIaIuIe does noI seI ouI
a ru|e oI Ihe road. NeverIhe|ess, "DE's conIacIs are qua|iIaIive|y
greaIer Ihan PA's and |DE] has Ihe greaIer inIeresI in having iIs
|aw app|ied. CiIing Cavers, "By enIering |DE], Ihe |P] has
exposed himse|I Io Ihe risk oI Ihe IerriIory and shou|d noI
subjecI persons |iving Ihere Io a Iinancia| hazard IhaI Iheir |aw
had noI creaIed. "lnhabiIanIs oI a sIaIe shou|d noI be puI in
jeopardy oI |iabi|iIy exceeding IhaI creaIed by Iheir sIaIe's |aw
jusI because a visiIor Irom a sIaIe oIIering higher proIecIion
decides Io visiI Ihere. DE |aw app|ies and D immune Irom suiI.
(d)CourI says Ihis is a |oss a||ocaIing ru|e, noI a regu|aIing ru|e.
ldea here is iI you are a D and your conducI and injury occur
wiIhin sing|e sIaIe, you can expecI your conducI Io be
governed by Ihe |aw oI IhaI sIaIe and P, who chooses Io go
inIo IhaI sIaIe, is vo|unIari|y subjecIing herse|I Io IhaI sIaIe.
(Enhances predicIabi|iIy).
(e)CourI did noI address possib|e purpose oI guesI sIaIuIe as
designed Io prevenI Iraud againsI insurance companies.
(lnIeresIing IacI). lI Ihis is Ihe purpose, Ihen maybe guesI
sIaIuIe is noI a|IogeIher ouIdaIed.
(I) DissenI says IhaI shou|d have used a beIIer |aw ana|ysis-guesI
sIaIuIe is Ihe inIerior |aw. He |ooks aI which |aw is regressing
across Ihe counIry and he Ihinks guesI sIaIuIes are on Ihe
dec|ine.
()Eger v. Du PonI-P emp|oyee in NJ, NJ emp|oyer and NJ
subconIracIor. Emp|oyer senI Io SC. Du PonI in SC. Exposure in
SC (injury). DiIIerenI workers comp |aws. NJ-DuPonI on|y
secondari|y |iab|e Ior WC and noI immune Irom a IorI suiI, SC-Du
PonI direcI|y |iab|e Ior WC and immune Irom IorI suiI. lssue is
36
which sIaIe's |aw deIermines wheIher DuPonI is amenab|e Io a IorI
suiI?
(a)NJ courIs approach is inIeresI ana|ysis (inc|uding weighing oI
inIeresIs)
(b)NJ wanIs Io proIecI workers by a||owing recovery oI addiIiona|
damages beyond WC; proIecI Ihe subconIracIor by a||owing
reimbursemenI Ior WC beneIiIs paid Io worker lNTERESTED
(c)SC wanIs Io proIecI Ihe we|Iare oI persons working wiIhin
borders; aIIix responsibi|iIy Ior IhaI proIecIion; regu|aIe Ihe
saIeIy oI Ihe workp|ace; a||ocaIe Iinancia| cosIs resu|Iing Irom
emp|oymenI accidenIs. AIIain Ihese goa|s by requiring IhaI a
genera| conIracIor assume burden oI Iurnishing WC Ior
emp|oyees oI subconIracIors because GC is usua||y more
Iinancia||y responsib|e lNTERESTED
(d)Weighing oI NJ inIeresIs: "NJ's inIeresI in seeing IhaI iIs injured
residenIs receive compensaIion has noI been neg|ecIed; iI has
been addressed Ihrough Ihe WC sysIem. |A]n injured residenI
who is covered by WC is guaranIeed paymenI oI medica|
expenses and disabi|iIy beneIiIs Ior work-re|aIed accidenIs . . .
ThereIore, WC, which was inIended Io prevenI injured workers
Irom becoming pub|ic charges by shiIIing Io indusIry Ihe
expense oI compensaIing work-re|aIed injuries, reasonab|y
saIisIies Ihe sIaIe's inIeresI in providing a source oI
compensaIion Ior injured workers.
(e)Weighing oI SC inIeresIs: SC "has a greaI inIeresI in having
oIher sIaIes recognize Ihe IorI immuniIy conIerred on genera|
conIracIors, since Ihis immuniIy is parI oI Ihe quid pro quo IhaI
is IundamenIa| Io SC's WC sysIem. "|S]ubjecIing a SC genera|
conIracIor Io IorI |iabi|iIy in addiIion Io Ihe expense oI providing
WC coverage . . .wou|d IrusIraIe IhaI sIaIe's inIeresI in
regu|aIing Ihe manner in which vicIims oI indusIria| accidenIs
are compensaIed and "wou|d undermine Ihe IoundaIion oI SC's
WC sIaIuIe by upseIIing "Ihe IundamenIa| equaIion oI |inking
37
Ihe ob|igaIion Io provide WC coverage and immuniIy Irom IorI
|iabi|iIy
(I) Resu|I-"NJ's inIeresI is noI sIrong enough Io ouIweigh SC's
inIeresI in immunizing genera| conIracIors. SC |aw app|ies;
DuPonI is immune Irom IorI suiI
(4)BoIIom |ine Ior sp|iI-domici|e inIrasIaIe IorIs
(a)When conducI and injury occur in Ihe IorIIeasor's home sIaIe
and IhaI sIaIe's |aw Iavors Ihe IorIIeasor, IhaI |aw governs
(even iI Ihe |aw oI Ihe vicIim's home sIaIe Iavors Ihe vicIim).
FosIer is Ihe on|y excepIion.
(b)When Ihe conducI and injury occur in Ihe vicIim's home sIaIe
and IhaI sIaIe's |aw Iavors Ihe vicIim, IhaI |aw app|ies (even iI
Ihe |aw oI Ihe IorIIeasor's home sIaIe Iavors Ihe IorIIeasor).
ix) True ConI|icIs (Sp|iI Domici|e Cross-Border TorIs)
(1)Bernhard v. Harrah's C|ub: C|ub is in Nv and Ihey se|| a|coho|, buI
a|so adverIise in CA. A coup|e Irom CA are injured in car accidenI
in CA and sued c|ub in CA cI, c|aiming c|ub was neg|igenI in
se||ing a|coho|. lssue is which |aw deIermines wheIher Ihe D is
|iab|e Ior Ihe injury caused by his inIoxicaIed paIron?
(a)CA aI Ihis Iime wou|d ho|d Iavern owners |iab|e Ior injuries
resu|Iing Irom Ihe neg|igenI serving oI a|coho|. CA's inIeresIs:
ProIecI vicIims oI IraIIic accidenIs caused by drunk drivers by
deIerring Iavern-owners Irom conIinuing Io serve apparenI|y
inIoxicaIed paIrons lNTERESTED. ConducI regu|aIing and |oss
a||ocaIion as we||.
(b)Nv's inIeresI-ProIecI Iavern-owners Irom ruinous civi| |iabi|iIy
"every Iime Ihey pour a drink -- lNTERESTED
(c)Approach-lnIeresI Ana|ysis + ComparaIive lmpairmenI. We have
a Irue conI|icI here.
(d)CA impairmenIs: "CA cannoI reasonab|e eIIecIuaIe iIs po|icy iI iI
does noI exIend iIs regu|aIion Io inc|ude ouI-oI-sIaIe Iavern
keepers such as D who regu|ar|y and purposeIu||y se||
inIoxicaIing beverages Io CA residenIs in p|aces and under
38
condiIions in which iI is reasonab|y cerIain Ihese residenIs wi||
reIurn Io CA and acI Iherein whi|e sIi|| in an inIoxicaIed sIaIe.
CA's inIeresIs wou|d be signiIicanI|y impaired iI iIs po|icy were
noI app|ied Io D.
(e)Nv impairmenIs: Since Ihe acI oI se||ing a|coho|ic beverages Io
obvious|y inIoxicaIed persons is a|ready proscribed in Nv |noI
Irue], Ihe app|icaIion oI CA's civi| |iabi|iIy ru|e wou|d noI impose
an enIire|y new duIy requiring Ihe abi|iIy Io disIinguish beIween
CA residenIs and oIher paIrons. Resu|I is on|y an increased
economic exposure, which Ior businesses IhaI acIive|y so|iciI
exIensive CA paIronage, is a Ioreseeab|e (and insurab|e)
business expense. Moreover, Nv's inIeresI is noI signiIicanI|y
impaired because |iabi|iIy is on|y imposed on Ihose who acIive|y
so|iciI CA business.
(I) Resu|I-CA |aw app|ies and D is |iab|e.
(2)BaxIer's HypoIheIica|
(a)SIaIe X is Iorum and where driving and accidenI occurs. SIaIe
Y has D and P. SIaIe X's |aw says IhaI speeding is neg|igence
per se and sIaIe Y says no per se ru|e and neg|igence musI
be proved. lssue is which |aw?
(b)BaxIer says IhaI X's goa| is road saIeIy Ior peop|e Irom X. Y
says inIeresI is Io conIro| |oss-disIribuIion righIs and duIies
beIween X and Y.
(c)lmpairmenI ana|ysis: X's regu|aIory inIeresI sIands a|one in
opposiIion Io Y's |oss disIribuIion inIeresI . . .|T]he X regu|aIory
inIeresI wi|| noI be impaired signiIicanI|y iI iI is subordinaIed in
Ihe comparaIive|y rare insIances invo|ving Iwo nonresidenIs who
are residenIs oI a sIaIe or sIaIes IhaI rejecI Ihe per se subru|e.
ConducI on X highways wi|| noI be aIIecIed by know|edge oI Y
residenIs IhaI Ihe X per se ru|e wi|| noI be app|ied Io Ihem iI
Ihe person Ihey injure happens Io be a co-ciIizen.
39
(d)Reso|uIion: "X's per se ru|e oughI noI Io be app|ied, because
X's regu|aIory inIeresI sIands a|one in opposiIion Io Y's |oss
disIribuIion inIeresI.
()ComparaIive impairmenI genera||y
(a)vicIim-proIecIing reso|uIion so |ong as iI is Ioreseeab|e IhaI v
wou|d be injured by parIicu|ar conducI.
(b)BaxIer IhoughI Ihe proper way Io reso|ve Ihis was Io imagine
Ihe Iwo sIaIes' |egis|aIures cou|d siI down and work ouI a
so|uIionwho wou|d be wi||ing Io give up whaI?
(c)ComparaIive impairmenI is noI supposed Io consider which |aw
is beIIer or worse
(d)SIi|| CA's approach Io CoL in IorIs. lnIeresI ana|ysis wiIh
inIermediaIe oI resIrained inIerpreIaIion and ending wiIh
comparaIive impairmenI ana|ysis.
(e)lnIerna| objecIive Ihe goa| under|ying each sIaIe's reso|uIion
oI conI|icI privaIe inIeresIs when a|| oI Ihe parIies are wiIhin Ihe
sIaIe
(I) ExIerna| objecIive IurIhering as Iar as possib|e Ihe goa| seI
IorIh in Ihe inIerna| objecIive in a|| siIuaIions invo|ving Ihose Ior
whom Ihe sIaIe has Ihe responsibi|iIy
"Ior |ega| ordering
(g)When exIerna| objecIives co||ide, you have a Irue conI|icI
(h)lmagine IhaI Ihe Iwo sIaIe |egis|aIures were Io siI down Io
come Io some Iorm oI agreemenI whaI wou|d Ihey decide Io
do?
(i) Which sIaIe's inIerna| objecIive (inIeresI) wou|d be LEAST
impaired iI iI were subordinaIed Io Ihe oIher sIaIe's inIerna|
objecIive (inIeresI)
(j) BoIIom |ine Ior sp|iI-domici|e cross-border IorIs-When conducI
originaIing in one sIaIe injures in anoIher sIaIe a person
domici|ed in Ihe |aIIer sIaIe, Ihe |aw oI Ihe |aIIer sIaIe app|ies iI
iI is more Iavorab|e Io Ihe injured person and lF Ihe occurrence
oI Ihe injury in IhaI sIaIe was objecIive|y Ioreseeab|e.
40
(k)lssue is oIIen when is iI Ioreseeab|e Io Ihe D IhaI conducI in
sIaIe X wi|| be judged in any way by sIaIe Y. lI may be
Ioreseeab|e according Io sIaIe Y aIIer Ihe IacI, buI noI beIore.
x) The nprovided-For Case
(1)iI neiIher sIaIe is inIeresIed in regu|aIing parIicu|ar conducI or
providing deIense Ior conducI
(2)Erwin v. Thomas: D was driving in Wash. and goI inIo accidenI
IhaI injured P's H and she sues in OR courI. D |ives in Or, P |ives
in Wash. This courI Iound IhaI OR |aw shou|d app|y. ln OR, acIion
Ior |oss oI consorIium is avai|ab|e, iI is noI in Wash. lssue is which
sIaIe's |aw deIermines avai|abi|iIy oI acIion Ior |oss oI consorIium?
Approach is inIeresI ana|ysis
(a)OR's po|icies: ProIecI wives by dec|aring Iheir |osses Io be rea|
and compensab|e NOT lNTERESTED since no Oregon wiIe is
invo|ved.
(b)Wash's inIeresIs: ProIecI Ds by shie|ding Ihem Irom Ihis
addiIiona| |iabi|iIy (perhaps IurIhering po|icyJjudgmenI IhaI wiIe's
|osses are noI considered rea| or compensab|e) NOT
lNTERESTED since no WashingIon D is invo|ved.
(c)Reso|uIion-"|N]eiIher sIaIe has a viIa| inIeresI in Ihe ouIcome oI
Ihis |iIigaIion and Ihere can be no conceivab|e maIeria| conI|icI
oI po|icies or inIeresIs iI an Oregon courI does whaI comes
naIura||y and app|ies Oregon |aw. Resu|I is Iorum |aw governs
and P can recover
()Casey v. Manson ConsIrucIion Co: lssue is |oss oI consorIium. D
and accidenI occurred in Wash and P is in OR (which a||ows |oss
oI consorIium). lssue- Which sIaIe's |aw deIermines avai|abi|iIy oI
acIion Ior |oss oI consorIium?
(a)sed 2
nd
resIaIemenI approach.
(b)Reso|uIion-"WA deIendanIs shou|d noI be required Io
accommodaIe Ihemse|ves Io Ihe |aw oI Ihe sIaIe oI residence
oI any Irave|er whom Ihey mighI injure in WA; WA's inIeresI in
Ihe maIIer, which was proIecIive oI WA deIendanIs, was
41
paramounI Io OR's inIeresI in having iIs residenI recover Ior her
|oss; WA's re|aIionship was Ihe more signiIicanI one and WA
|aw app|ied.
(4)Neumier ru|es
(a)lI you have common domici|e Ia|se conI|icIs, Ihen go wiIh |aw
oI domici|e Ior |oss a||ocaIion ru|es (Babcock).
(b)lI you have sp|iI domici|e Irue conI|icIs, Ihen iI go inIo D's jx, iI
Ihere is a pro-D |aw IhaI shou|d app|y. lI accidenI in pro-P jx
and Ioreseeabi|iIy is here, Ihen app|y |aw oI pro-P. Lex |oci
de|icIi acIs as Iie breaker
(c)A|| oIher cases (diIIicu|I)-app|y |ex |oci de|ecIi bJc IhaI comporIs
wJ expecIaIions.
()Neumeier v. Kuehner: AccidenI in OnIario and P Irom Ihere. D is
Irom NY. NY doesn'I have a guesI sIaIuIe. P is noI denied
recovery mere|y because oI her sIaIus as a graIuiIous guesI.
OnIario has a guesI sIaIuIe. HosI driver is immune Irom |iabi|iIy
vis-a-vis his graIuiIous guesIs excepI in cases oI gross neg|igence
(a)Fa|se conI|icI here, buI approach is "Neumeier Ru|es
(b)Reso|uIion: CourI enunciaIes Ihe Neumeier Ru|es. This ca||s Ior
app|icaIion oI Ru|e app|icaIion oI Ihe |ex |oci de|icIi un|ess
iI is shown IhaI noI app|ying IhaI |aw "wi|| advance Ihe re|evanI
subsIanIive |aw purposes wiIhouI impairing Ihe smooIh working
oI Ihe mu|IisIaIe sysIem or producing greaI uncerIainIy Ior
|iIiganIs. Escape is inapp|icab|e here.
xi) Dnpesage & ConducI-Regu|aIion ConI|icIs
(1)lnIroducIion
(a)Depecage is avai|ab|e in S CI Io app|y Io a|| kinds oI conI|icIs
oI |aw approach. One area is subsIance vs. procedure; anoIher
area is cases oI mixed K and IorI case. ln K case, one |aw
may govern Ihe perIormance oI K and anoIher |aw governs K
IormaIion.
(2)Ardoyno v. Kyzar: LA is Ihe Iorum, perIormance oI Ihe K and
where Ihe aIIyJc|ienI re|aIionship is. MS is where s|anderer is,
42
where D is. lssue is which |aw governs (a) avai|abi|iIy oI acIion Ior
inIerIerence wiIh conIracI and (b) avai|abi|iIy oI puniIive damages
Ior s|ander? Combined modern approach: inIeresI ana|ysis,
ResIaIemenI 2d, comparaIive impairmenI ana|ysis.
(a)lnIerIerence wiIh K-ln LA, acIion Ior inIerIerence wiIh conIracIs
noI avai|ab|e -- proIecIs MS D. ln MS, acIion Ior inIerIerence
wiIh conIracI is avai|ab|e -- proIecIs LA P. LA po|icies: To
ensure "mobi|iIy oI |abor Iorce by enhancing Ihe chances oI
emp|oyees Io receive beIIer emp|oymenI oIIers Irom compeIing
("inIerIering) emp|oyers. By noI a||owing an emp|oyer Io sue
Ihe "inIerIering emp|oyer, LA |aw preserves and enhances
opporIuniIies Ior a|| emp|oyees. This po|icy is re|evanI in a|| LA
conIracIs (even iI Ihe individua| beneIiciary oI Ihis ru|e is a non-
Louisianan)- lNTERESTED because Ihe conIracI was Io be
perIormed in LA. MS po|icies: ProIecI sIabi|iIy oI emp|oymenI
conIracIs by pena|izing compeIing emp|oyers who inIerIere wiIh
such conIracIs. This po|icy is conIined Io MS conIracIs
(regard|ess oI who is Ihe individua| who beneIiIs Irom Ihe ru|e)-
NOT lNTERESTED because Ihe conIracI was noI made, nor was
iI Io be perIormed, in MS` Resu|I- Fa|se conI|icI. LA |aw
app|ies. No acIion Ior inIerIerence wiIh k.
(b)PuniIive damages Ior s|ander-LA- NoI avai|ab|e aI Ihe Iime oI
Ihe sIaIemenIs (a|Ihough made avai|ab|e by subsequenI sIaIuIe).
MS-avai|ab|e. LA po|icies- "ProIecI inIegriIy oI judicia| sysIem by
avoiding specu|aIive damages -- lNTERESTED since case is
beIore a LA courI. MS po|icies- DeIer s|anderous conducI
wiIhin iIs borders. -- lNTERESTED since conducI occurred in
MS by a MS D. Resu|I- CourI resorIs Io ResIaIemenI Second
and comparaIive impairmenI and conc|udes IhaI MS has Ihe
more signiIicanI re|aIionship and IhaI MS inIeresIs wou|d be
more impaired iI iIs |aw were noI app|ied. MS |aw app|ies and
damages are avai|ab|e.
()HypoIheIica|s on depecage
43
(a)lssues-Which |aw governs: (a) D's neg|igence; and (b) Ihe
beneIiciaries oI Ihe wrongIu| deaIh acIion?
(b)Reso|uIion lssue (a): SIaIe A |aw app|ies. SIaIe A has
|egiIimaIe reasons Io insisI on adherence Io iIs snow-Iire ru|e
and on deIining Ihe consequences oI noncomp|iance. SIaIe B's
no-snow-Iire ru|e is simp|y irre|evanI wiIh regard Io driving
ouIside iIs borders.
(c)ProprieIy oI dnpesage: Dnpesage is noI inappropriaIe here
because Ihe snow-Iire ru|e oI SIaIe A is noI c|ose|y re|aIed, and
perhaps noI re|aIed aI a||, Io Ihe wrongIu| deaIh ru|e oI Ihe
same sIaIe. The app|icaIion oI Ihe Iormer ru|e and Ihe non-
app|icaIion oI Ihe |aIIer ru|e does noI disIorI or deIeaI Ihe
po|icies oI sIaIe A, nor does iI disIurb whaIever equi|ibrium
Ihese Iwo ru|es mighI esIab|ish beIween deIerrence and
compensaIion
(4)Padu|a v. Li|arn
(a)NY is Ihe Iorum and where Ps and D are; MA is Ihe siIe oI Ihe
bui|ding and consIrucIion and where work Iook p|ace. Even
Ihough Ihis is a common domici|e case, Neumerier ru|e doesn'I
app|y bJc iI is a |oss a||ocaIion ru|e raIher Ihan conducI
regu|aIion ru|e. This disIincIion cou|d be diIIicu|I Io app|y. lI
mighI noI easy Io Iind ouI Ihe purpose oI |aw in a parIicu|ar
jx.
(b)Concurring opinion: sIaIuIory inIerpreIaIion prob|em. The boIIom
|ine is as Ihe commenI suggesIs, Ihere is dispuIe on Ieasibi|iIy
Io disIinguish conducI regu|aIing and |oss a||ocaIing
ru|es. ConducI regu|aIing ru|e, iI Ihe conducI and injury
occurred in Ihe same sIaIe, app|y Ihe |aw oI IhaI sIaIe.
(c)lI conducI occurred in SIaIe A, Ihe injury occurred in sIaIe B.
SIaIe B may have inIeresI in app|ying iIs |aw Io proIecI Ihe
ciIizen in Ihe sIaIe. The CI a|mosI a|ways app|ies Ihe |aw oI
sIaIe B.
()ConducI regu|aIing ru|es
44
(a)Deciding iI iI is |oss a||ocaIing or acIiviIy-deIerring is diIIicu|I. 1
oI Ihe sIriking Ihings abouI conducI regu|aIion is IhaI Ihey are
IerriIoria||y dominaIed.
(b)lI conducI-regu|aIing ru|e and iI conducI and injury occur in
same sIaIe, Ihen app|y |aw oI IhaI sIaIe.
(c)lI injury and conducI occur in 2 diIIerenI sIaIes, Ihis is more
diIIicu|I. lI sIandards are Ihe same (same provisions), Ihen does
noI maIIer-choice oI |aw ana|ysis wi|| be cursory-|aw oI p|ace oI
conducI wi|| probab|y app|y.
(d)lI conducI sIaIe has higher |eve| duIy oI care on Ihe D Ihen
p|ace oI injury sIaIe-conducI sIaIe app|ies bJc has bigger
inIeresI. OIher sIaIe is noI inIeresIed bJc conducI is in oIher
sIaIe and noI as concerned wiIh proIecIing Ps. So Ia|se conI|icI
and concerns abouI predicIabi|iIy are saIisIied bJc iI D is
engaging in conducI in conducI sIaIe he is avai|ing himse|I oI
iIs |aw.
(e)When sIaIe oI injury has higher injury imposed on D Ihen sIaIe
oI conducI-Ihis is a Irue conI|icI. SIaIe oI injury wanIs Io
proIecI Ps and give Ihem greaIer recovery and conducI sIaIe
wanIs Io proIecI Ds. ConducI sIaIe wi|| probab|y app|y.
(I) lI iI is Ioreseeab|e IhaI D engages in conducI and injury is in
oIher sIaIe, Ihen D is subjecI Io higher sIandards oI injury sIaIe
xii)Comp|ex LiIigaIion
(1)ln re Air Crash DisasIer aI Sioux CiIy, lA
(a)CourI dismisses lA as app|icab|e |aw. Crash in lA bJc oI crash
|anding, buI IorIuiIous. lI is |ex |oci de|ecIi.
(b)Mu|IidisIricI |iIigaIion-procedura| device in Ied courIs IhaI
conso|idaIe cases IhaI have common c|aims. Here cases were
Ii|ed a|| over Ihe counIry and Ied courIs conso|idaIe Ihem bJc
Ihey were rea||y Ihe same Iria|.
(c)Raises issues bJc Ied courIs siIIing in diversiIy app|y sIaIe
subsIanIive ru|es in which Ihey siI, inc|udes choice oI |aw ru|es.
ln cases oI IransIer, Ied courI app|ies choice oI |aw ru|es Irom
45
which case came. This is Io prevenI Iorum-shopping by means
oI IransIer and noI Io pena|ize Ps. Desirab|e Io change Iorum
even Ihough P goI jx over D and we do noI wanI Io hurI P.
Means D cannoI Iorum shop, buI does noI prevenI P Irom
Iorum shopping Io begin wiIh.
(d)lL is Ihe IransIer Iorum and inIeresIed sIaIe. niIed's principa|
p|ace oI business, desIinaIion oI I|ighI. P|ane was in CA and
mainIenance was Ihere and manuIacIured Ihere. OH is where
engines are Irom. CO-crew Iraining. NY-GE's p|ace oI business
and Missouri-McDonne||'s p|ace oI business.
(e)WrongIu| deaIh, persona| injury c|aims vary by sIaIe here. CourI
minimizes diIIicu|Iies in Ihe case buI assuming IhaI when Ia|king
abouI puniIive damages, Ihey are conducI-regu|aIing and
IhereIore have Io do wiIh D, IhereIore noIhing Io do wiIh
compensaIion Io P. This is why P's domici|e does noI maIIer AT
ALL-no inIeresI.
(I) NoI Ieasib|e Io expecI niIed Io be subjecI Io |aws oI a|| Ihe
sIaIes and mighI Ihink IhaI |aws oI lL and CA are suIIicienI Io
proIecI Ihose e|sewhere.
(g)CourI Ihen has p|aces oI business oI D and musI app|y choice
oI |aw ru|es oI various sIaIes. lI |umps cases IogeIher in
diIIerenI approaches.
(i) Cases Irom GA, CO, lA, NY, lL-2
nd
resIaIemenI,
(ii)CA-inIeresI ana|ysis and comparaIive impairmenI and
(iii)PA and DC-inIeresI ana|ysis and resIaIemenI second.
(h)We end up on|y app|ying lL Io niIed, CA Io MD and OH |aw
Io GE.
(i) Prob|ems wiIh Ihis-
(i) NY has own specia| ru|es-does noI rea||y Io||ow 2
nd

resIaIemenI. GA-app|ies o|d |ex |oci de|ecIi ru|e. CourI shou|d
have said IhaI oIher courIs decide IhaI Ihis is noI Ieasib|e in
aircraII cases and can predicI GA wou|d abandon Ihis.
DisIricI CI cou|d have cerIiIied Io sIaIe supreme courI oI GA
46
Ihe issue and Ihen app|ied iI aIIer hearing Irom GA SC. GA
cou|d have Iried Io use escape devices Io avoid app|ying lA
|aw-characIerize issue as breach oI K beIween GA P and
niIed. Cou|d a|so have app|ied renvoi and |ook aI lA |aw
and Ihen shiII iI back Io GA or lL. MighI use |asI acI ru|e Io
say injury Io GA P occurred in P bJc IhaI is where wrongIu|
deaIh hurI |oved ones.
xiii) ParIy AuIonomy
(1)Genera||y
(a)This is a cornersIone oI Ihe |aw oI conIracIs. Abi|iIy Io choose
|aw IhaI governs Iheir Ks.
(b)nder 1
sI
resIaIemenI, Ihis choice someIimes noI Io||owed. The
issue is rea||y Io whaI exIenI can parIies conIracI Io direcI a
courI or judge can do. ParIies have a |oI oI Ireedom IhaI
governs K, as |ong as iI is a reasonab|e choice. There are
some |imiIaIions on parIy auIonomy.
(2)ResIaIemenI 2
nd
187
(a)The |aw oI Ihe sIaIe chosen by Ihe parIies Io govern Iheir
conIracIua| righIs and duIies wi|| be app|ied iI Ihe parIicu|ar
issue is one which Ihe parIies cou|d have reso|ved by an
exp|iciI provision in Iheir agreemenI direcIed Io IhaI issue.
(b)The |aw oI Ihe sIaIe chosen by Ihe parIies Io govern Iheir
conIracIua| righIs and duIies wi|| be app|ied even iI Ihe
parIicu|ar issue is one which Ihe parIies cou|d noI have
reso|ved by an exp|iciI provision in Iheir agreemenI direcIed Io
IhaI issue, un|ess eiIher
(i) The chosen sIaIe has no subsIanIia| re|aIionship Io Ihe
parIies or Ihe IransacIion AND Ihere is no oIher reasonab|e
basis Ior Ihe parIies' choice or
(ii)App|icaIion oI Ihe |aw oI Ihe chosen sIaIe wou|d be conIrary
Io a IundamenIa| po|icy oI a sIaIe which has a maIeria||y
greaIer inIeresI Ihan Ihe chosen sIaIe in Ihe deIerminaIion oI
Ihe parIicu|ar issue and which, under Ihe ru|e oI 188 (|aw
47
IhaI wou|d be app|icab|e absenI a choice oI |aw provision),
wou|d be Ihe sIaIe oI Ihe app|icab|e |aw in Ihe absence oI
an eIIecIive choice oI |aw by Ihe parIies
(c)ln Ihe absence oI a conIrary indicaIion oI inIenIion, Ihe
reIerence is Io Ihe |oca| |aw oI Ihe sIaIe oI Ihe chosen |aw
(d)A|mosI a|| courIs Io||ow Ihis, even iI Ihey do noI Io||ow Ihe
resIaIemenI in oIher areas. Pro-parIy auIonomy.
()Ned||oyd Lines B.v. v. Superior CourI
(a)DispuIe over wheIher CA or Hong Kong wou|d app|y. Choice oI
|aw c|ause- "This agreemenI sha|| be governed by and
consIrued in accordance wiIh Hong Kong |aw and each parIy
hereby irrevocab|y submiIs Io Ihe non-exc|usive jurisdicIion and
service oI process oI Ihe Hong Kong courIs. This means IhaI
Hong Kong |aw governs regard|ess oI Iorum. ParIies did noI
choose exc|usive Iorum (Ihis is why iI is in CA).
(b)ln CA bJc Ps wanI CA |aw bJc iI wi|| he|p Ihem and Hong Kong
|aw doesn'I. (No Iiduciary duIy c|aim under Hong Kong |aw).
(c)lssue: is Ihe Choice-oI-Law c|ause enIorceab|e, and does iI
encompass a|| causes oI acIion?
(d)CourI uses ResIaIemenI (Second) secIion 187 IesI:
(i) ls Ihis issue wiIhin Ihe parIies' conIracIua| power? NO.
(ii)Does HK have a "subsIanIia| re|aIionship? YES (P's &
anoIher parIy's incorporaIion). Even iI noI subsIanIia|, iI
wou|d be a "reasonab|e basis Ior choosing HK |aw.
(iii)Does CA have a "more signiIicanI re|aIionship Ihan HK? CI.
assumes YES
(iv)Does CA have a "MaIeria||y greaIer inIeresI Ihan HK? NoI
addressed
(v)ls Ihe app|icaIion oI Ihe chosen |aw (HK) "conIrary Io a
IundamenIa| po|icy oI CA? NO
(vi)Does Ihe choice-oI-|aw c|ause encompass Ihe noI pure|y
conIracIua| issues such as breach oI Iiduciary duIy? YES
48
(e)Resu|I is IhaI Ihe chosen |aw app|ies Io a|| COAs. BuI, parIies
cannoI conIracI Ioo broad|y iI anoIher sIaIe wou|d be very
inIeresIed.

)ConsIiIuIiona| LimiIaIions on Choice oI Law
a) Due Process and Fu|| FaiIh & CrediI
i) The S ConsIiIuIion |eaves sIaIes |arge|y Iree Io deIermine choice oI
|aw approaches wiIhin a broad consIiIuIiona| perimeIer
ii) Two Sources oI S ConsIiIuIiona| LimiIs on Choice oI Law
(1)The Due Process C|ause FourIeenIh AmendmenI, SecIion 1 Due
Process C|ause
(a)"|N]or sha|| any SIaIe deprive any person oI |iIe, |iberIy, or
properIy, wiIhouI due process oI |aw....
(2)The Fu|| FaiIh and CrediI C|ause ArIic|e lv, SecIion 1 oI Fu|| FaiIh
and CrediI
(a)"Fu|| FaiIh and CrediI sha|| be given in each SIaIe Io Ihe Pub|ic
AcIs, Records, and judicia| Proceedings oI every oIher sIaIe.
And Ihe Congress may by genera| Laws prescribe Ihe Manner
in which such AcIs, Records and Proceedings sha|| be proved,
and Ihe EIIecI IhereoI.
(b)28 .S.C. 178
(i) "Such AcIs, records and judicia| proceedings or copies
IhereoI, so auIhenIicaIed, sha|| have Ihe same Iu|| IaiIh and
crediI in every courI wiIhin Ihe niIed SIaIes and iIs
TerriIories and Possessions as Ihey have by |aw or usage in
Ihe courIs oI such SIaIe, TerriIory, or Possession Irom which
Ihey are Iaken.
iii) Home lnsurance Co. v. Dick
(1)TX origina||y Ihe Iorum here-now in S SC. Dick was a ciIizen oI
TX, buI |ived in MX and boughI insurance Ihere. K app|ied when
boaI was in MX and Ihere was a choice oI |aw provision IhaI
c|aims had Io be broughI wiIhin 1 yr (MX |aw governs) and TX
49
SoL said 2 years and prec|udes parIies Irom agreeing Io
|imiIaIions periods oI |ess Ihan 2 years
(2)Fu|| IaiIh and crediI does noI come inIo p|ay here bJc Ihey did noI
raise Ihe issue and a|so bJc MX is noI a sIaIe and FFCC on|y
app|ies Io Ie||ow sIaIes. A|so, choice oI |aw c|ause Io some
degrees Iips Ihe sca|es oI recognizing Ihe choice oI |aw made by
Ihe parIies. This choice is very reasonab|e and Ihe besI |aw.
()lniIia| K was beIween Dick and MX insurance co; reinsurers are in
NY and do business in TX. Dick moves back Io TX aIIer Ihese
evenIs. TX's c|aim Io proIecI Dick is weak.
(4)lssue: can TX |aw app|y Io Ihe conIracI even Ihough iI was neiIher
made in TX, nor Io be perIormed in TX?
()CourI Iinds IhaI TX |aw was unconsIiIuIiona| in Ihis case-TX was
overreaching in app|ying iIs |aw Io Ihis case. On|y reason TX |aws
or TX courIs are invo|ved is IhaI Dick was ab|e Io sue Ihere (n.b.
he cou|d noI mainIain Ihis suiI Ioday) TX's aIIempI Io impose a
greaIer ob|igaIion Ihan IhaI agreed upon and Io seize properIy in
paymenI oI Ihe imposed ob|igaIion vio|aIes Ihe guaranIy againsI
deprivaIion oI properIy wiIhouI due process oI |aw. TX sIaIuIe
acIs Io exIend Ihe righIs and ob|igaIions oI Ihe parIies, raIher Ihan
mere|y aIIecIing a remedy aIIached Io a righI. Pub|ic po|icy
inIeresIs cannoI here overcome Ihe due process concerns. This is
noI a FF&C case; iI is a due process case
vii)A|aska Packers' v. lndusIria| AccidenI Comm'n oI Ca|iIornia
(1)Workers comp and choice oI |aw provision. Emp|oyee hired in CA
and PPB oI Corp is CA (emp|oyee is Mexican). A|aska is p|ace oI
choice oI |aw provision. We are noI concerned wiIh Ihe diIIerence
beIween Ihe CA and A|aska |aw.
(2)lssues: Does Ihe app|icaIion oI CA Workers' CompensaIion Law
vio|aIe (a) Ihe due process c|ause or (b) Ihe Iu|| IaiIh & crediI
c|ause oI Ihe ConsIiIuIion?
()Reso|uIion: No vio|aIion oI due process. ConIracI was enIered inIo
wiIhin CA; emp|oyee was Io be paid in CA; CA has inIeresI in
50
regu|aIing Ihe emp|oyer-emp|oyee re|aIionship; diIIicu|I Ior
emp|oyee Io geI back Io A|aska Io make c|aim
(4)No vio|aIion oI FF&C. lneviIab|e IhaI Ihere shou|d be conI|icI, buI
prima Iacie a sIaIe can app|y iIs own |aw in iIs own courIs; CA
need noI a|ways give way Io AK inIeresIs; AK inIeresI is noI
greaIer in Ihis case.(Ihis suggesIs some kind oI ba|ancing is going
on-courI appears Io have backed oII Ihis aIIer Ihis case).
(a)There musI be |imiI Io FFCC oIherwise a|| sIaIes wou|d have Io
disp|ace Iheir own |aws in order Io app|y oIher sIaIe's |aw. Can
on|y app|y in |imiIed insIances.

Focus ObjecIive
Due
Process
ConIacIs (is iI Iair Io app|y parIicu|ar
sIaIe's |aw Io Ihis case?) Goa| is
Iairness and concerned wiIh unIair
surprise
ProIecIion Ior
lndividua|s
Fu|| FaiIh and
CrediI
lnIeresIs (are Ihe compeIing sIaIes'
inIeresIed in having Iheir |aws
app|ied?) Concerned wiIh sIaIe
inIeresI and goa| is reducing
inIersIaIe IricIion
RespecI Ior
SIaIe
SovereignIy

b) Convergence (oI Due Process and Fu|| FaiIh & CrediI)
i) A||sIaIe v. Hague
(1)SIacking issue-widow receives 1K iI Wis. Law app|ies, 4K iI Minn
|aw app|ies. Case Ii|ed in Minn. (Iorum). Minn SC app|ied Minn
|aw. Minn has a Iew conIacIs: decedenI's p|ace oI emp|oymenI,
A||sIaIe does business Ihere and widow moves Ihere aIIer
decedenI's deaIh.
(2)Wis conIacIs: K oI insurance enIered inIo, descendenI |ived,
accidenI, A||sIaIe does business Ihere and po|icy was de|ivered
Ihere.
51
()CourI is deciding Ihe ConsIiIuIiona| Q oI wheIher Minn cou|d app|y
iIs |aw given
(4)Reasoning: "|F]or a SIaIe's subsIanIive |aw Io be se|ecIed in a
consIiIuIiona||y permissib|e manner, IhaI SIaIe musI have a
signiIicanI conIacI or a signiIicanI aggregaIion oI conIacIs, creaIing
sIaIe inIeresIs, such IhaI choice oI |aw is neiIher arbiIrary nor
IundamenIa||y unIair.
()MinnesoIa's Ihree conIacIs, IhaI, in Ihe aggregaIe, according Io
Ihe P|ura|iIy, permiI app|icaIion oI MinnesoIa |aw Io be
consIiIuIiona|:
(a)DecedenI was a member oI Ihe MinnesoIa workIorce.
(b)DeIendanI A||sIaIe does business in MinnesoIa.
(c)P Widow moved Io Minn Io||owing Ihe accidenI and prior Io
commencing suiI
(6)How jusIices eva|uaIed Ihis case:
(a)Brennan and 4 jusIices: conIacIs and inIeresIs, noI arbiIrary or
IundamenIa||y unIair IesI. ConIacIs suIIicienI app|icaIion
(b)SIevens and 1 jusIice: SovereignIy IhreaIened? App|icaIion
arbiIrary or IundamenIa||y unIair? TesIs (2). SovereignIy &
IundamenIa| Iairness noI impaired app|icaIion.
(c)Powe|| and jusIices: ConIacIs & inIeresIs, noI IundamenIa||y
unIair. SIaIe musI have po|icy inIeresI IesI. ConIacIs give rise
Io no |egiIimaIe inIeresIs app|icaIion.
(7)Due process concern-NaIionwide po|icy, so Ps were noI |imiIed in
driving, so A||sIaIe had some idea IhaI oIher sIaIe |aw mighI app|y
Io iI. However, ordinari|y p|ace oI K wou|d govern, so A||sIaIe
mighI have expecIed Wis |aw. NoI surprising IhaI Minn |aw mighI
app|y.
(8)FFCC concern-FacI IhaI Minn has an inIeresI means iI does noI
maIIer iI Wis. has any inIeresI or noI. CourI says IhaI FFCC
concerns do noI maIIer bJc due process concerns were saIisIied.
c) ConI|icIs BeIween Federa| Law and Foreign Law
i) PresumpIion AgainsI ExIraIerriIoria|iIy
52
(1)Congress is presumed Io |egis|aIe wiIh an inIenI IhaI |aws be
enIorced on|y wiIhin IerriIoria| boundaries oI Ihe S absenI a c|ear
indicaIion oIherwise (assumpIion since 190s)
ii) Charming BeIsy-CourIs wi|| aIIempI Io inIerpreI .S. |aws Io be
consisIenI wiIh inIernaIiona| |aw, absenI c|ear direcIion Irom Congress.
(1)lI Congress says iI is regu|aIing exIraIerriIoria||y, courI does noI
say Congress can'I do Ihis, iI can -Congress noI |imiIed by
inIernaIiona| |aw.
iii) Now we are dea|ing wiIh ConsIiIuIiona| |imiIs on Iedera| govI when iI
aIIempIs Io regu|aIe exIraIerriIoria||y.
(1)Congress is subjecI Io ConsIiIuIion and due process c|ause. Due
process c|ause |imiIs Ied. GovI in aIIempI Io regu|aIe
inIernaIiona||y, buI we usua||y do noI see courIs assessing Ihese
cases re: ConsIiIuIiona| regu|aIions (probab|y bJc oI eIIecIs
docIrine suggesIs S inIeresI in cases)
iv) LauriIzen v. Larsen
(1)P|ace oI K is in NY (Iorum), buI everyIhing e|se is in Denmark.
(Law oI K, p|ace oI P and D, where ship is regisIered). AccidenI
happened in Cuba on ship. P has IorI acIion under S |aw, noI
under Denmark |aw.
(2)S Jones acI: "Any seaman who sha|| suIIer persona| injury in Ihe
course oI his emp|oymenI may mainIain an acIion Ior damages aI
|aw, and in such acIion a|| sIaIuIes oI Ihe S modiIying or
exIending CL|aw righI or remedy in cases oI persona| injury Io
rai|way emp|oyees sha|| app|y.
()lssue: Does Ihe Jones AcI app|y Io a Ioreign seaman injured
aboard a Ioreign vesse| whi|e in Ioreign waIers?
(4)ConsIrucIion oI Ihe Jones AcI --"The ni|aIera| Approach
(a)AbsurdiIy oI |iIera| reading. lI read |iIera||y, Ihe JA wou|d
conIer a S righI oI acIion which requires noIhing more Ihan
IhaI P be seaman who suIIers persona| injury during Ihe course
oI his emp|oymenI, even in Ihe absence oI any connecIion wiIh
Ihe S. lI wou|d exIend S |aw Io a|| a|ien seamen injured
53
anywhere in Ihe wor|d in Ihe service oI waIercraII oI every
naIion.
(b)Judicia| power Io de|ineaIe reach oI JA. When iI wroIe Ihese
a||-comprehending words, Congress was re|ying on Ihe
experience oI S courIs in reconci|ing S and Ioreign inIeresIs
and accommodaIing Ihe reach oI S |aws Io Ihose oI oIher
mariIime naIions. Congress musI have expecIed IhaI in Ihe
absence oI more deIiniIe direcIions, Ihe JA wou|d be app|ied by
S courIs Io Ioreign evenIs, Ioreign ships, and Ioreign seamen
on|y in accordance wiIh Ihe usua| docIrine and pracIices oI
mariIime |aw.
(c)lnIernaIiona| ComiIy. By usage as o|d as Ihe naIion, sIaIuIes
have been consIrued Io app|y on|y in accordance wiIh preva|enI
docIrines oI inIernaIiona| |aw. This accords wiIh |ong-heeded
admoniIion IhaI an AcI oI Congress oughI never Io be
consIrued Io vio|aIe Ihe |aw oI naIions iI any oIher possib|e
consIrucIion remains.
(d)CourI says Ihe JONES ACT SHOLD NOT REACH THAT FAR
()Choice oI |aw approach -- "The Bi|aIera| Approach
(a)Avoid or reso|ve conI|icIs beIween compeIing |aws by
ascerIaining and va|uing poinIs oI conIacI beIween Ihe
IransacIion and Ihe sIaIes or governmenIs whose compeIing
|aws are invo|ved. The criIeria are derived Irom weighing Ihe
signiIicance oI one or more connecIing IacIors beIween Ihe
shipping IransacIion regu|aIed and Ihe naIiona| inIeresI served.
. . Whi|e being mindIu| oI Ihe necessiIy Ior muIua| Iorbearance
Io avoid reIa|iaIion.
(6)7 IacIors Ihe courI uses Io id Ihe appropriaIe |aw IhaI shou|d
app|y:
(a)Cuba-p|ace oI wrongIu| acI. CourI dismissed Ihis bJc on vesse|,
p|ace oI wrongIu| acI is IorIuiIous and Irumped by |aw oI Ihe
I|ag.
(b)Denmark-Law oI Ihe F|ag
54
(c)Denmark-A||egiance or domici|e oI injured parIy
(d)Denmark-A||egiance oI deIendanI shipowner
(e)NYJS-P|ace oI k (IorIuiIous)
(I) NYJS-The |aw oI Ihe Iorum -- NY, buI insuIIicienI conIacIs, +
choice oI |aw c|ause
(g)P argues inaccessibi|Iiy oI Ioreign Iorum courIs says Ihis is
re|evanI on|y in Iorum non conviens, courIs says iI wi|| app|y
Danish |aw Io case, so Ihis issue is nJa
(h)App|icaIion: Review oI IacIors shows overwhe|ming
preponderance in Iavor oI Danish |aw. D was served process in
NY and conIracI was signed Ihere, buI Ihere was Danish choice
oI |aw c|ause, which oIIseIs Ihose IacIors. No jusIiIicaIion Ior
inIerpreIing Ihe Jones AcI Io inIervene beIween Ioreigners and
Iheir own |aw because oI acIs on a Ioreign ship in Ioreign
waIers.
(7)Resu|I-Jones AcI does noI app|y -- Danish |aw app|ies on remand
v) ResIaIemenI (Third) oI Ihe Foreign Re|aIions Law oI Ihe niIed SIaIes
(1)SecIion 402
(a)SubjecI Io secIion 40, a sIaIe has jurisdicIion Io prescribe |aw
wiIh respecI Io:
(i) ConducI IhaI who||y, or in subsIanIia| parI, Iakes p|ace wiIhin
iIs IerriIory (IerriIory)
(ii)The sIaIus oI persons, or inIeresIs in Ihings, presenI wiIhin
iIs IerriIory (IerriIory)
(iii)ConducI ouIside iIs IerriIory IhaI has or is inIended Io have
subsIanIia| eIIecI wiIhin iIs IerriIory (eIIecIs docIrine
JIerriIory)
1. lnvoked in anIiIrusI conIexI. (Why SC says HarIIord Fire is
subjecI Io S |aws.)
2. E opposed Ihis Ior yrs.
(iv)AcIiviIies, inIeresIs, sIaIus, or re|aIions oI iIs naIiona|s
ouIside as we|| as wiIhin iIs IerriIory (naIiona|iIyJpassive
persona|iIy)
55
1. l.e., France has |aws IhaI proIecI French ciIizens
anywhere in Ihe wor|d. Cou|d sue in |oca| French jx even
iI Frenchman was hurI in CA.
(v)CerIain conducI ouIside iIs IerriIory by persons noI iIs
naIiona|s IhaI is direcIed againsI Ihe securiIy oI Ihe sIaIe or
againsI a |imiIed c|ass oI oIher sIaIe inIeresIs (proIecIive)
(2)SecIion 40
(a)Even when one oI Ihe bases Ior jurisdicIion under secIion 402
is presenI, a sIaIe may noI exercise jx Io prescribe |aw wJrJI a
person or acIiviIy having connecIions wiIh anoIher sIaIe when
Ihe exercise oI such jx is unreasonab|e
(b)How do you Ie|| iI iI is unreasonab|e?
(i) SecIion 40(2): WheIher Ihe exercise oI jurisdicIion is
unreasonab|e is deIermined by eva|uaIing a|| re|evanI IacIors,
inc|uding
1. Link oI Ihe acIiviIy Io Ihe IerriIory oI Ihe regu|aIing sIaIe
2. ConnecIions beIween regu|aIing sIaIe and person
responsib|e Ior acIiviIy being regu|aIed
. CharacIer oI acIiviIy Io be regu|aIed; imporIance Io
regu|aIing sIaIe
4. JusIiIied expecIaIions
. lmporIance oI regu|aIion Io Ihe inIernaIiona| po|iIica|,
|ega|, or economic sysIem
6. ExIenI Io which Ihe regu|aIion is consisIenI wiIh Ihe
IradiIions oI Ihe inIernaIiona| sysIem
7. ExIenI Io which anoIher sIaIe may have an inIeresI in
regu|aIing Ihe acIiviIy
8. Like|ihood oI conI|icI wiIh regu|aIion by anoIher sIaIe
()40()-When noI unreasonab|e Ior Iwo or more sIaIes Io regu|aIe
acIiviIy, buI Ihere is a conI|icI, each sIaIe shou|d eva|uaIe iIs own
and Ihe oIher sIaIe's inIeresI, and deIer iI oIher sIaIe's inIeresI is
c|ear|y greaIer
vi) HarIIord Fire
56
(1)CAJS is Ihe Iorum, where Ihe injury is and Ps. K is where
conducI occurs and where Ds are. Sherman AcI-makes every
conIracI, combinaIion, or conspiracy in unreasonab|e resIrainI oI
inIersIaIe or Ioreign commerce i||ega|.
(a)ConsIrued as reaching exIraIerriIoria| behavior since Ihe 190s
(2)lssue: Does Ihe Sherman AcI app|y Io conducI in Ihe K which
was inIended Io and did produce subsIanIia| eIIecIs in Ihe S?
()Answer- lI is we|| esIab|ished IhaI Ihe Sherman AcI app|ies Io
Ioreign conducI IhaI was meanI Io produce and did in IacI
produce some subsIanIia| eIIecI in Ihe S. Here Ihe London re-
insurers engaged in un|awIu| conspiracies Io aIIecI Ihe markeI Ior
insurance in Ihe S and Iheir acIiviIies did in IacI have subsIanIia|
eIIecI
(4)Does inI'| comiIy prevenI app|icaIion oI Ihe Sherman AcI?
(a)No. Even assuming IhaI in a proper case a courI may dec|ine
Io exercise iIs jurisdicIion on grounds oI comiIy, Ihis case does
noI presenI appropriaIe circumsIances. Moreover, we address
Ihis AFTER deIermining wheIher or noI Ihe courI has jx; comiIy
does noI aIIecI Ihe courIs jurisdicIiona| ana|ysis.
()ls Ihis a Irue conI|icI?
(a)No. FacI IhaI BriIain has esIab|ished a comprehensive
regu|aIory regime Io govern Ihe BriIish re-insurance indusIry
does noI mean Ihere is a Irue conI|icI. The IacI IhaI such
conducI is |awIu| in Ihe jurisdicIion in which iI Iakes p|ace does
noI, in and oI iIse|I, bar app|icaIion oI S anIiIrusI |aws, even iI
Ihe Ioreign sIaIe has a sIrong inIeresI in regu|aIing such
conducI. No conI|icI exisIs, Ior Ihese purposes, where a
person subjecI Io regu|aIion can comp|y wiIh Ihe |aws oI boIh
jurisdicIions. Since Ihe London re-insurers are noI barred by
BriIish |aw Irom acIing in comp|iance wiIh S |aw, Ihere is noI
conI|icI.
57
(b)SouIer says IhaI reinsures cou|d abide by boIh Eng|and and S
|aw. So, no conI|icI, Ihey can raise conducI Io meeI mosI
sIringenI requiremenIs. Resu|I-Sherman acI app|ies.
(6)Sca|ia's DissenI
(a)Congress has |egis|aIive jurisdicIion Io regu|aIe Ioreign conducI,
and has in IacI exercised iI in Sherman AcI cases, Ihus
negaIing Ihe IirsI "canon oI sIaIuIory consIrucIion i.e., Ihe
presumpIion againsI exIraIerriIoria|iIy.
(b)Second canon an acI oI Congress oughI never Io be
consIrued Io vio|aIe Ihe |aw oI naIions iI any oIher possib|e
consIrucIion remains SIaIuIes shou|d noI be inIerpreIed Io
regu|aIe Ioreign persons or conducI iI IhaI regu|aIion wou|d
conI|icI wiIh princip|es oI inIernaIiona| |aw or wiIh Ihe |imiIaIions
cusIomari|y observed by naIions upon Ihe exercise oI Iheir
powers.
(c)A naIion having some basis Ior prescripIive jurisdicIion Ior
enacIing |aws IhaI exIend Io cerIain conducI, shou|d
noneIhe|ess reIrain Irom exercising IhaI jurisdicIion when iIs
exercise wou|d be unreasonab|e. Here, iI is unimaginab|e IhaI
an asserIion oI |egis|aIion jurisdicIion by Ihe S wou|d be
considered reasonab|e under inIernaIiona| |aw. Sca|ia does noI
even geI Io weighing Ihe S jx againsI Eng|ish jx.
4)Choice oI Law in Ihe lnIernaIiona| Arena: European Cross-Border
Regu|aIion oI TrusIs
a) The Hague ConvenIion on TrusIs

)Persona| (AdjudicaIory) JurisdicIion
a) FundamenIa|s oI Persona| JurisdicIion
i) "AdjudicaIory JurisdicIion
(1)lnIroducIion
(a)More |imiIs assigned Io persona| jx Ihan choice oI |aw bJc
Iorum app|ies iIs |aws oIIenIimes.
58
(b)Person jx objecIions are waivab|e- iI you cou|d conIesI jx, and
you don'I you are deemed Io have waive Ihe righI. lI you are a
D and you appear in courI, you waive righI Io conIesI persona|
jx un|ess you make a specia| appearance.
(c)Moved Irom IerriIoria| based ana|ysis Io a min. conIacIs ana|ysis
hisIorica||y.
(2)Does Ihe courI have auIhoriIy Io hear Ihis dispuIe as againsI Ihis
parIicu|ar deIendanI?
(a)ln sIaIe courI
(i) BreadIh oI sIaIe sIaIuIory granI oI jx given by |egis|aIure Io
courIs.
(ii)Does sIaIe granI Ia|| wiIhin ConsIiIuIiona| |imiIs. MosI say
courIs have jx Io exIenI permiIIed by ConsIiIuIion. (oIIen
exIended Io |imiIs oI due process) (due process provisions
oI Ihe 14Ih amendmenI)
(b)ln Iedera| courI
(i) Abi|iIy Io exercise jx buI courI a|so have provided D noIice
IhaI jx is being asserIed againsI Ihem.
(ii)BreadIh oI Iedera| granIs oI jurisdicIion
1. Laws provide Ior naIionwide service oI process in cerIain
cases (anIiIrusI-Fed courI can serve process on anyone
anywhere in S)
2. OIherwise dicIaIed by Federa| Ru|es oI Civi| Procedure,
which provide, inIer a|ia, IhaI iI a D is subjecI Io sIaIe
courI jurisdicIion, she is a|so subjecI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI
a Iedera| courI in IhaI sIaIe
(iii)Does Ihe Iedera| granI Ia|| wiIhin ConsIiIuIiona| |imiIs (due
process provisions oI Ihe Ih amendmenI)
ii) Pennoyer v. NeII
(1)SIi|| good |aw; noI Ihe on|y way Io exercise jx, buI is one way Io.
(2)C|assic IerriIoria| |imiI on exercise oI jurisdicIion
(a)D had Io be presenI in Ihe IerriIory oI Ihe Iorum (presence
cou|d exisI by proxy iI D owned properIy) AND
59
(b)DeIendanI had Io be served process in Ihe IerriIory oI Ihe
Iorum
iii) Wor|d-Wide vo|kswagen
(1)Ds had Io be served acIua| noIice oI suiI-Ihis is noI conIesIed
here
(a)(Pennoyer's IerriIoria| |imiIs on service re|axed service musI be
reasonab|y ca|cu|aIed Io give acIua| noIice)
(2)Minimum conIacIs musI saIisIy Ihree componenIs (Pennoyer's
noIion oI acIua| presence a|so no |onger required):
(a)SIaIe inIeresIs (FF&C). There is some |imiI oI FF&C on exercise
oI persona| jx. Can conI|icI wiIh anoIher sIaIe's aIIempI Io
exercise persona| jx-has Io do wiIh inIeresIs oI Ihe sIaIe (is is
inIeresIed in exercising jx).
(i) OK had inIeresIs-hospiIa| in OK, accidenI in OK, eIc.
(b)Convenience requiremenI reasonab|eness; musI noI oIIend
noIions oI Iair p|ay and subsIanIia| jusIice) (due process)
(i) MajoriIy Iocuses oI D; DissenI Iocuses on P and D
(ii)Many Iimes Ihere is more Ihan 1 Iorum IhaI is convenienI or
avai|ab|e. P can choose Iorum, buI choice |imiIed Io where
D has presence. Here D won ouI-Ihere is no one p|ace
convenienI Ior boIh P and D
(c)nIair Surprise (due process)
(i) EIIecIs a|one insuIIicienI (enough Ior choice oI |aw, buI noI
Ior persona| jx); Ioreseeabi|iIy insuIIicienI; some purposeIu|
conIacIs wiIh Ihe Iorum required such IhaI D can reasonab|y
anIicipaIe being ha|ed inIo courI
b) AdjudicaIory AuIhoriIy in lnIernaIiona| Cases
i) Asahi MeIa| lndusIry Co. v. Superior CI. oI CA
(1)Zurcher was riding his moIorcyc|e on Ca|iIornia highway and due
Io a sudden I|aI Iire, he goI inIo an accidenI which rendered him
serious|y injured and his wiIe who was Ihe passenger was ki||ed.
Zurcher broughI suiI againsI Chen Shin Rubber Co., a Taiwanese
manuIacIurer oI Ihe Iire Iube. Chen Shin in Iurn Ii|ed cross
60
comp|ainI seeking indemniIicaIion Irom iIs codeIendanIs and Asahi
MeIa| lndusIry Co. which supp|ied Iube's va|ve Io Chen Shin.
(2)Asahi argued IhaI CA cou|d noI exercise jx over iI since iI |acked
suIIicienI conIacIs wiIh Ihe sIaIe. Asahi (D) did noI do business in
CA, nor did iI imporI any producIs inIo CA. lnsIead, iI so|d iIs
va|ve assemb|ies Io Cheng Shin and Ihe va|ve assemb|ies were
shipped Io Taiwan. Asahi (D) c|aimed IhaI iI had never
conIemp|aIed IhaI iI mighI be subjecI Io suiI in CA bJc oI sa|es Io
Cheng Shin in Taiwan buI Cheng Shin c|aimed IhaI Asahi (D)
deIiniIe|y knew IhaI iIs producIs were being so|d in CA. Ashai is a
Japan based company. Chen Shin was one oI Ashai's cusIomers
and Ihe sa|e oI va|ves Iook p|ace in Taiwan. Chen Shin c|aims
IhaI Ashai knew IhaI by p|acing iIs producIs in Ihe sIream oI
commerce, some oI Ihese producIs wi|| end up in CA.
()ParI ll.A (P|ura|iIy)
(a)PurposeIu| Avai|menI
(i) PredicIabi|iIy-permiI Ds Io shape Iheir conducI. BuI Ihere is
a|so a re|aIive|y |oose requiremenI and noI a sIricI IesI.
Concerned wiIh |imiIing know|edge.
(ii)Reasonab|eness (quid pro quo)
(b)Minimum conIacIs musI be based on Ihe de|iberaIe acIs oI Ihe
D "an acIion oI Ihe deIendanI purposeIu||y direcIed Ioward
Ihe Iorum sIaIe
(c)SIream oI commerce (Ioreseeabi|iIy) insuIIicienI; know|edge is
insuIIicienI; inIenI is required
(4)ParI ll.B (MajoriIy)
(a)TradiIiona| noIions oI Iair p|ay and subsIanIia| jusIice
(i) Burden on Ihe deIendanI (dragged ha|Iway round Ihe wor|d)
(ii)lnIeresIs oI Ihe Iorum sIaIe (minima|; Ihis is mere|y an
indemniIy acIion, noIhing Io do wiIh giving redress Io P)
(iii)P|ainIiII's inIeresI in obIaining re|ieI (Cheng Shin may wanI
re|ieI, buI does iI need Io geI iI in Ca|iIornia? remedy
avai|ab|e in Japan or Taiwan)
61
(iv)lnIersIaIe judicia| sysIem's inIeresI in obIaining Ihe mosI
eIIicienI reso|uIion oI conIroversies (|iIigaIion beIween Ioreign
corporaIions beIIer pursued in Iheir home courI(s)
ii) PosI Asahi TesI Ior jx
(1)Need
(a)A SIaIe inIeresI
(b)ThaI |iIigaIing in Ihe Iorum is noI undu|y inconvenienI or
unreasonab|e and
(c)PurposeIu| avai|menI(?)
iii) Due Process
(1)SpeciIic JurisdicIion Permissib|e iI nonresidenI corporaIe
deIendanI has "cerIain minimum conIacIs wiIh Iorum such IhaI Ihe
mainIenance oI Ihe suiI does noI oIIend IradiIiona| noIions oI Iair
p|ay and subsIanIia| jusIice. ConIroversy "arises ouI oI or is
"re|aIed Io Ihe deIendanI's conIacIs wiIh Ihe Iorum
(2)Genera| JurisdicIion ConIinuous and sysIemaIic genera| business
conIacIs
(a)Ana|ogy Io persona| domici|e or residence
(b)JusIiIicaIion?
(i) AssumpIion oI Iairness Io deIendanI?
(ii)SIaIe's regu|aIory abi|iIy?
(iii)Need Io have aI |easI one Iorum?
iv) He|icopIeros Naciona|es de Co|ombia, S.A. v. Ha||
(1)JoinI venIure doing business in Peru, buI based in TX, signs K
wiIh Co|umbian company. Co|umbian company has |imiIed conIacIs
wiIh TX (purchase oI he|icopIers, re|aIed Iraining Irips, paymenIs
Irom TX banks).
(2)C|ose Io geIIing genera| jx, buI majoriIy dismisses speciIic jx.
MajoriIy says P did noI p|ead speciIic jx and IhaI is why iI is noI
in IronI oI Ihem.
()One oI COA is neg|igence on parI oI pi|oI, and pi|oI is Irained in
TX-so iI wou|d seem IhaI TX is inIeresIed.
(4)SpeciIic Jx
62
(a)No. ParIies sIipu|aIe insuIIiciency oI conIacIs
()Genera| Jx ConIinuous and sysIemaIic genera| business conIacIs
(a)He|ico| CEO Irip Io HousIon
(b)Checks drawn on Texas bank
(c)Purchase oI Be|| He|icopIers and re|aIed Iraining Irips
(i) More imporIanI Ior speciIic jurisdicIion?
(6)DissenI says iI cou|d have been speciIic jx bJc oI neg|igence
c|aim.
(7)jx oI necessiIy-P oughI Io have some Iorum. So a S courI, even
iI iI does noI have persona| jx mighI exercise jx iI Ihere is no
oIher courI IhaI P can geI re|ieI. MosI courIs are re|ucIanI Io
embrace Ihis noIion.
v) Due Process
(1)Concerns:
(a)Fairness Io deIendanI
(i) PredicIabi|iIy
(ii)Risk assessmenI
(iii)Quid pro quo (is business receiving beneIiIs Irom sIaIe?)
(iv)Large quanIum oI unre|aIed conIacIs or Iewer sIrong|y
re|aIed conIacIs
(b)lnIeresI oI sIaIe
(i) Regu|aIory IuncIion (SpeciIic Jx)
1. TerriIoria|
2. EIIecIs-based
(ii)Exercise oI auIhoriIy over members oI po|iIica| communiIy
(Genera| Jx)
(2)Lower courIs |ike Brennan dissenI Irom He|icopIeros and are
inc|ined Io exercise jx
c) AdjudicaIory AuIhoriIy in OIher CounIries-ComparaIive AdjudicaIory Jx
i) ln S -- Due Process is core issue
(1)Concerns:
(a)Fairness Io deIendanI
(i) PredicIabi|iIy
63
(ii)Risk assessmenI
(iii)Quid pro quo (is business receiving beneIiIs Irom sIaIe?)
(iv)Large quanIum oI unre|aIed conIacIs or Iewer sIrong|y
re|aIed conIacIs
(b)lnIeresI oI sIaIe
(i) Regu|aIory IuncIion (SpeciIic Jx)
1. TerriIoria|
2. EIIecIs-based
(ii)Exercise oI auIhoriIy over members oI po|iIica| communiIy
(Genera| Jx)
(2)ComparaIive JurisdicIion
(a)Genera| JurisdicIion courIs have power Io adjudicaIe virIua||y
any kind oI dispuIe
(i) DirecI
1. physica| presence
2. doing business
. lncorporaIion
4. habiIua| residence
. Domici|e
(ii)lndirecI
1. Ownership oI |oca| properIy
(b)SpeciIic JurisdicIion courIs have power on|y over conIroversies
deriving Irom, or c|ose|y re|aIed Io, Ihe circumsIances re|ied on
Io esIab|ish jurisdicIion in Ihe Iorum
(c)CaIegory-speciIic jurisdicIion genera| in Ihe sense IhaI c|aims
Io be |iIigaIed need noI be |inked, as under speciIic jurisdicIion,
buI speciIic in IhaI Ihe jurisdicIion exIends on|y Io cerIain
subjecIs
(i) E.g. German Code oI Civi| Procedure Ru|e 29, which says
IhaI a courI in Ihe p|ace oI perIormance has jurisdicIion over
a|| maIIers re|aIing Io Ihe conIracI (inc|uding conIracI
IormaIion)
64
(d)niversa| JurisdicIion inherenI duIy Io exercise jurisdicIion in
cerIain maIIers e.g. IorIure, genocide
ii) Examp|es oI JurisdicIiona| Bases
(1)NaIiona|iIy oI Ihe p|ainIiII arI. 14 oI Ihe French Civi| Code:
(a)"An a|ien, even one noI residing in France, may be summoned
beIore Ihe French courIs Ior Ihe Iu|Ii||menI oI ob|igaIions
conIracIed by him in France wiIh a French person; he may be
broughI beIore Ihe French courIs Ior ob|igaIions conIracIed by
him in a Ioreign counIry Ioward French peop|e.
(b)N.b. French |aw a|so provides IhaI any French naIiona| can be
sued in France, regard|ess oI where Ihe ob|igaIion arose and
regard|ess oI where Ihe French naIiona| |ives. ln Iheory, buI
subjecI Io excepIions, French |aw a|so says Ihis jurisdicIion is
exc|usive.
(2)n|imiIed jurisdicIion on Ihe |oca| presence oI properIy German
Code oI Civi| Procedure SecIion 2 (a|so Japan, AusIria &
Be|gium)
(a)App|ies Io Iangib|e or inIangib|e properIy; app|ies Io movab|es
and immovab|es. No |imiIaIion in va|ue oI judgmenI Io be given
()Service oI Process conIers jurisdicIion
(a)Ior Ds wiIhin Eng|and, jx is perIecIed by service oI process
wiIhin IerriIory (Iag jx)
(b)For Ds ouIside Eng|and, service may be perIormed ouI oI Ihe jx
wiIh Ihe permission oI Ihe courI (under Ru|e 6.20) iI:
(i) A c|aim is made againsI a person domici|ed in Ihe
jurisdicIion
(ii)A c|aim is made Ior an injuncIion ordering Ihe deIendanI Io
do or reIrain Irom doing an acI wiIhin Ihe jurisdicIion
(iii)A c|aim is made againsI someone on whom Ihe c|aim Iorm
has been or wi|| be served and
1. There is beIween Ihe c|aimanI and IhaI person a rea|
issue which iI is reasonab|e Ior Ihe courI Io Iry and
65
2. The c|aimanI wishes Io serve Ihe c|aim Iorm on anoIher
person who is a necessary or proper parIy Io IhaI c|aim
(c)A c|aim is made in respecI oI a conIracI where Ihe conIracI:
(i) Was made wiIhin Ihe jurisdicIion
(ii)Was made by or Ihrough an agenI Irading or residing wiIhin
Ihe jx
(iii)ls governed by Eng|ish |aw (or)
(iv)ConIains a Iorum-se|ecIion c|ause
(v)A c|aim is made in respecI oI a breach oI conIracI
commiIIed wiIhin Ihe jurisdicIion
iii) Brusse|s Regu|aIion (Iormer|y Brusse|s ConvenIion)
(1)Doub|e ConvenIion
(a)Addresses JurisdicIion & RecogniIion and EnIorcemenI oI
JudgmenIs
(2)JurisdicIion
(a)Genera| Bases
(i) Domici|e
(b)SpeciIic Bases, e.g.,
(i) ConIracI p|ace oI perIormance
(ii)TorI p|ace oI injury
()NOT "ExorbiIanI Bases
(a)French Civi| Code arI. 14, Eng|ish "Iag jurisdicIion, Quasi-in-rem
jurisdicIion
d) JurisdicIion based on ProperIy-quasi in-rem jx
i) DeIiniIions
(1)ln personam-jx over person based on persona| conIacIsJre|aIionship
wiIh Iorum
(2)ln rem jurisdicIion over properIy wiIhin Ihe Iorum Io adjudicaIe
righIs re|aIed Io Ihe properIy
()Quasi-in-rem jurisdicIion over properIy as a ruse Io permiI Ihe
exercise oI jurisdicIion over Ihe person
ii) Quasi-in-rem JurisdicIion in Ihe niIed SIaIes
66
(1)ProperIy wiIhin Ihe Iorum is suIIicienI Io esIab|ish jurisdicIion iI Ihe
properIy is aIIached aI Ihe commencemenI oI Ihe proceeding
(2)JurisdicIion is |imiIed Ihe courI can on|y give a judgmenI up Io
Ihe va|ue oI Ihe properIy
iii) O|d Ru|e: Harris v. Ba|k (190)
(1)Harris owes Ba|k money (properIy is Harris's debI Io Ba|k)
(2)Ba|k owes EpsIein money
()EpsIein serves Harris in Mary|and, Ihereby aIIaching Ba|k's
properIy; Ba|k is subjecI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI Ihe Mary|and courI
because Ba|k's properIy had been aIIached (does noI wanI Harris
himse|I, he wanIs Ba|k's properIy)
(4)ProperIy wiIhin Iorums is enough Io esIab|ish jx iI properIy is
aIIached aI sIarI oI proceeding. LimiIed Io Ihe va|ue oI Ihe
properIy aIIached.
iv) ShaIIer v. HeiIner
(1)HeiIner sues in De|aware: Greyhound Corp., Greyhound Lines, 28
presenI or Iormer oIIicers oI one or boIh corporaIions
(2)HeiIner Ii|es moIion Io sequesIer properIy oI non-residenIs
amounIing Io 82,000 shares oI Greyhound common sIock and
some sIock opIions. 19 DeIendanIs owned sIock. 2 DeIendanIs
owned opIions
()According Io DE |aw, DE is Ihe siIus oI a|| sIock in a DE
corporaIion. Q is wheIher HeiIner can use ownership oI DE sIock
as excuse Io hau| Ds in courI Io DE? Can on|y geI 21 oI Ds on
basis bJc 7 oI Ds don'I own any sIock.
(4)CourI says lnIernaIiona| Shoe sIandard oI "Iair p|ay and subsIanIia|
jusIice governs proceedings in rem as we|| as proceedings in
personam
(a)Jx over a Ihing is Ihe same as saying jx over Ihe inIeresIs oI
persons in a Ihing
(b)JurisdicIion over properIy in Ihe Iorum when Ihe properIy iIse|I
is Ihe source oI Ihe |iIigaIion wi|| (near|y) a|ways saIisIy Ihose
sIandards
67
(c)When Ihe on|y ro|e oI Ihe properIy is Io provide Ihe basis Ior
bringing Ihe deIendanI inIo courI, Ihe sIandards mighI noI be
saIisIied."We IhereIore conc|ude IhaI a|| asserIions oI sIaIe-courI
jx musI be eva|uaIed according Io Ihe sIandards seI IorIh in
lnIernaIiona| Shoe and iIs progeny.
()Concurrences oI Powe|| and SIevens suggesI IhaI hisIoryJIradiIion
goes some way Iowards answering Ihe Iair p|ay inquiry
(a)DE has noI by sIaIuIe said IhaI direcIorsJoIIicers are subjecI Io
DE jx. Cou|d DE pass sIaIuIe IhaI says Ihis? Yes, Ihey did pass
Ihis sIaIuIe 2 wks |aIer. Choice oI |aw ana|ysis diIIers Irom
exercise oI persona| jx. DE |aw can app|y Io inIerna| aIIairs
docIrine. BuI, does Ihis mean you are subjecI Io suiI in DE Ior
any maIIer re|aIing Io corp.? NoI enough Ior DE |egis|aIure Io
pass |aw IhaI says Ihey have jx over oIIicers, Ihey sIi|| musI
saIisIy lnIernaIiona| Shoe sIandards. Q is iI min. conIacIs are
enough-Ihis is a separaIe Q.
(6)Brennan's concurrenceJdissenI
(a)Minimum conIacIs ana|ysis shou|d app|y, and shou|d suIIice
here because:
(i) DE has a subsIanIia| inIeresI in providing redress Ior vicIims
oI corporaIe misconducI
(ii)Jx shou|d be read expansive|y iI sIaIe has a maniIesI
regu|aIory inIeresI
(iii)Dx has an inIeresI in overseeing Ihe aIIairs oI a De|aware
corporaIion
(iv)DE |aw shou|d app|y; reasonab|e Io have iI app|ied by a
De|aware courI
(v)The IacI IhaI Ihe shareho|ders have Iaken on responsibi|iIies
governed by De|aware |aw goes some way Iowards inIorming
Ihem IhaI Ihey are |ike|y subjecI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI
De|aware courIs
e) TransienI JurisdicIion
i) Burnham v. Superior CourI
68
(1)Burnham is served wiIh process in SF when visiIing his chi|dren.
CA courI exercises jurisdicIion over him based on Ihis service oI
process ("Iag jx)
(2)lssue: Does Ihe asserIion oI jx by means oI service oI process
over a person physica||y presenI in Ihe Iorum vio|aIe "IradiIiona|
noIions oI Iair p|ay and subsIanIia| jusIice?
()Sca|ia P|ura|iIy: Was "Iag jurisdicIion recognized in 1868, when Ihe
14Ih AmendmenI was adopIed? Yes. Has iI been
recognizedJapp|ied since Ihen? Yes. lI musI be consisIenI wiIh due
process (even iI one |ooks Io "conIemporary sIandards as
espoused by JusIice Brennan). Moreover, iIs IradiIiona| naIure
gives rise Io Ihe expecIaIion oI Ds IhaI Ihey can be served iI
wiIhin Ihe sIaIe; Ihus, iI comporIs wiIh any Iairness concerns.
AddiIion oI lnIernaIiona| Shoe inquiry broadens Ihe ways in which
jurisdicIion can be asserIed Irom Ihe |imiIed IerriIoria| ground oI
Pennoyer, buI iI does noI |imiI Pennoyer. ShaIIer v. HeiIner dea|I
wiIh absenI deIendanIs; Ihus, app|ying Iair p|ay and subsIanIia|
jusIice noIions Io see wheIher Ihey cou|d be broughI wiIhin Ihe
Iorum was warranIed
(4)Brennan concurrence: TradiIion is noI Ihe on|y IacIor courI shou|d
consider in considering wheIher Ihe asserIion oI jx is consisIenI
wiIh due process. TradiIion is imporIanI in IhaI iI gives Ds noIice
IhaI vo|unIary presence in Ihe Iorum wi|| make him subjecI Io suiI
Ihere. TransienI D avai| Ihemse|ves oI beneIiIs oI Ihe Iorum sIaIe
by visiIing: hea|Ih and saIeIy beneIiIs guaranIeed by po|ice, Iire,
and emergency medica| services, Irave| on sIaIe's roads and
waIerways, IruiIs oI Ihe sIaIe's economy, and has Ihe righI Io Ii|e
a suiI in Ihe sIaIe; Ihus shou|d be ob|iged Io deIend. Burdens on
Ds are s|ighI given modern IransporI and communicaIions
ii) ConsenI as a basis Ior JurisdicIion
(1)A deIendanI can waive an objecIion Io persona| jurisdicIion
(2)A deIendanI can choose a Iorum (eIIecIive|y consenIing Io Ihe
Iorum's jurisdicIion) in a choice-oI-Iorum c|ause
69
(a)A choice-oI-Iorum c|ause can a|so ousI a courI oI jurisdicIion
by providing Ior on|y one Iorum Io hear Ihe case

PERSONAL JRlSDlCTlON CHOlCE OF LAW
Concerned wiIh DeIendanI's ConIacIs Concerned wiIh a|| ConIacIs
Concerned wiIh sIaIe's reason Ior
asserIing power
Concerned wiIh SIaIe SovereignIy &
inIersIaIe re|aIions
PosI-Occurrence EvenIs Fu||y
Re|evanI
PosI-Occurrence EvenIs may be Re|evanI
I) Service oI Process & Forum Se|ecIion C|auses in TransnaIiona|
ConIroversies
i) Why serve process?
(1)EIIecIuaIes Iorma| asserIion oI Ihe auIhoriIy oI Ihe courI
(2)Serves noIice Io Ihe deIendanI IhaI her righIs are Ihe issue oI a
courI proceeding
(a)SeparaIe Irom asserIion oI auIhoriIy in Ihe courI. ln civi| |aw
counIries, Ihis disIincIion is more comp|icaIed (civi| |aw
counIries do noI a||ow inIorma|, service oI process by mai|,
eIc.)
ii) LeIIers RogaIory
(1)P|ainIiII requesIs courI in SIaIe A Io prepare an iniIiaIing documenI
(2)DocumenI is senI Io Iedera| sIaIe deparImenI in SIaIe A
()DocumenI is IransmiIIed Io sIaIe deparImenI in SIaIe B
(4)SIaIe B sIaIe deparImenI IransmiIs documenI jusIice deparImenI
()JusIice deparImenI IransmiIs documenI Io Ihe courI in Ihe area
where deIendanI is be|ieved Io be
(6)CourI serves process in accordance wiIh |aw oI sIaIe B
(7)Above happens in reverse
(8)May sIi|| have Io do Ihis wiIh counIries IhaI did noI join Ihe Hague
ConvenIion.
70
iii) Hague ConvenIion on Service oI Process-|imiIed Io civi| and
commercia| maIIers
(1)Necessary bJc process wiIhouI iI was noI good. BeIore, service oI
process abroad meanI IhaI Ihey had Io use |eIIers rogaIory.
(2)SIream|ines and simp|iIies process
()Each SIaIe parIy designaIes a CenIra| AuIhoriIy, which serves
process in accordance wiIh Ihe |aw oI IhaI SIaIe
(a)CourI in SIaIe A IransmiIs documenIs Io Ihe CenIra| AuIhoriIy in
SIaIe B
(b)CenIra| AuIhoriIy serves process in accordance wiIh Ihe |aw oI
SIaIe B
(c)CenIra| AuIhoriIy IransmiIs cerIiIicaIe oI service Io courI in SIaIe
A
(4)vo|kswagenwerk AG v. Sch|unk
(a)P IirsI Ii|es a wrongIu| deaIh acIion againsI vWoA. They Ihen
reIi|e and re-serve vWoA on beha|I oI vWAG. Sch|unk serves
vo|kswagen AG Ihrough iIs who||y-owned subsidiary, vo|kswagen
oI America
(b)Lower courI Iinds IhaI vWoA is agenI oI vWAG. Thus, service is
proper. BuI, vWAG invokes Ihe Hague ConvenIion iI is
app|ies, iI is Ihe exc|usive means Ior serving process. P did noI
serve under convenIion and so iI iI app|ies, Ihe service is noI
proper and D shou|d win.
(c)Hague ConvenIion |anguage: The ConvenIion sha|| app|y in a||
cases, in civi| or commercia| maIIers, where Ihere is occasion
Io IransmiI a judicia| or exIra-judicia| documenI Ior service
abroad.
(d)Was Ihere occasion Io IransmiI a judicia| documenI abroad?
(i) ConvenIion does noI answer Ihis Q, so courI say musI |ook
Io Iorum |aw.
(ii)Whose |aw governs Ihis quesIion?
71
1. S SC says Iorum |aw-l||inois |ong arm sIaIuIe said
subsIiIuIed service is ok, IhereIore, no occasion Io
IransmiI service abroad and IhereIore service was ok.
(iii)convenIion wanIed Io ouI|aw noIiIicaIion au parqueI, wiIh is
very simi|ar Io Ihis, which seems Io say IhaI Ihis ouIcome is
noI whaI was desired by convenIion
(iv)SC says IhaI inIerna| |aw was noI Ia|ked abouI, so iI is
a||owed. Appears un|ike|y IhaI draIIers oI convenIion meanI
Ihe inIerna| |aw oI Ihe Iorum cou|d dicIaIe when service
abroad is required
(v)Hague convenIion cannoI be used as Iag jx, iI's on|y abouI
noIice; service under convenIion does noI esIab|ish jx- you
need separaIe jx basis.
(e)Hague convenIion preempIs sIaIe |aw when iI app|ies. lI you |eI
sIaIe |aw say when iI app|ies, Ihen you undercuI eIIecIiveness
oI Ihe convenIion.
(I) Service oI process by mai| under convenIion
(i) SIaIes IhaI objecI Io service by mai| cannoI be served Ihis
way and saIisIy Ierms oI convenIion, buI Ihis does noI sIop
you Irom doing Ihis. lI company does noI objecI and Ihere
is a deIau|I judgmenI againsI Ihem, Ihen Ihis judgmenI wou|d
noI be enIorceab|e in IhaI counIry. S wou|d enIorce Ihis
judgmenI.
()Forum se|ecIion agreemenIs
(a)ln inIernaIiona| cases, Iorum se|ecIion c|auses are ok and are
exc|usive. WJrJIJ domesIic Iorum se|ecIion agreemenIs, Ihere is
more re|ucIance Io assume Ihey are exc|usive, buI Ihis is
waning.
(b)Concern is iI parIies are negoIiaIing on equa| IooIing. lI parIies
did noI have equa| IooIing and c|ause seems unreasonab|e,
courI can po|ice and sIrike down Ihe Iorum Ks.

6)RecogniIion & EnIorcemenI oI JudgmenIs
72
a) Res JudicaIa & Basic Princip|es ) good summary on p 474
i) Res JudicaIa (C|aim Prec|usion)
(1)ldenIiIy oI boIh parIies (or priviIy)
(2)ldenIiIy oI cause oI acIion
()Can inc|ude c|aims noI acIua||y broughI buI which cou|d have been
broughI (compu|sory joinder)
ii) Co||aIera| EsIoppe| (lssue Prec|usion) : lI you're sued, and IounI gui|Iy
oI neg|igence, l cou|d Ihen sue you and geI a judgemenI, even aIIer
Ihe suiI.
(1)ldenIiIy oI parIy againsI whom prior judgmenI is soughI Io be sued
musI be Ihe same in boIh proceedings
(2)lssue musI have been:
(a)LiIigaIed by Ihe parIies
(b)DeIermined by Ihe Iribuna|
(c)EssenIia| Io judgmenI oI Ihe Iribuna|
iii) "Fu|| FaiIh and CrediI sha|| be given in each SIaIe Io Ihe Pub|ic AcIs,
Records, and judicia| Proceedings oI every oIher sIaIe. And Ihe
Congress may by genera| Laws prescribe Ihe Manner in which such
AcIs, Records and Proceedings sha|| be proved, and Ihe EIIecI
IhereoI. niIed SIaIes ConsIiIuIion, ArIic|e lv, SecIion 1
iv) "Such AcIs, records and judicia| proceedings or copies IhereoI, so
auIhenIicaIed, sha|| have Ihe same Iu|| IaiIh and crediI in every courI
wiIhin Ihe niIed SIaIes and iIs TerriIories and Possessions as Ihey
have by |aw or usage in Ihe courIs oI such SIaIe, TerriIory, or
Possession Irom which Ihey are Iaken. 28 .S.C. 178
(1)Have FFCC Ior eIIiciency and Iina|iIy. Some concerns IhaI Ihere
are prob|ems wiIh jusIice-iI IirsI courI goI iI wrong Ihen jusIice is
hurI in Iavor oI Iina|iIy, buI ConsIiIuIion says FFCC is righI.
(2)SC 178 goes IarIher Ihan ConsIiIuIion bJc ConsIiIuIion does noI
say anyIhing abouI sIaIe courI judgmenIs and Iedera| courIs. SC
says sIaIe judgmenIs wi|| be given eIIecI by Iedera| courIs.
()Congress has noI said iI sIaIe courIs musI give FFCC Io Iedera|
courIs, buI iI assumed.
73
v) EnIorcemenI oI judgmenI
(1)lI |osing parIy does noI have asseIs in F1 Ihen P musI go Io F2,
and musI converI F1 judgmenI Io F2 judgmenI bJc F2 is |imiIed.
FFCC he|ps bJc F1 judgmenI is Iaken Io F2 and iI is reduced Io
an F2 judgmenI. niIorm Ioreign judgmenI recogniIion acI a||ows P
Io geI F2 judgmenI and geI S.
vi) FaunI|eroy v. Lum
(1)ln Miss. dea|ing in IuIures was i||ega| aI Ihis Iime. ConIracIing
parIies made IuIure conIracI and iI was unenIorceab|e in Miss and
knew iI was i||ega|. They made iI subjecI Io arbiIraIion as we||.
(2)Missouri courI uphe|d arbiIraIor award and Iurned iI inIo judgmenI.
So Ihey had judgmenI Ior P Irom Missouri courI. D Iried Io argue
IhaI Miss. |aw shou|d govern. Missouri courI goI iI wrong and
shou|d noI have uphe|d arbiIraIor award. Ps Ihen Iake award Io
Miss and Miss. SC wi|| noI order enIorcemenI oI Missouri courI
order Ior Ps.
()S SC reversed Ihe Mississippi SC and he|d IhaI Ihe Mississippi
SC was required Io give Iu|| IaiIh and crediI Io Ihe Missouri
judgmenI.
(4). This is iron |aw oI FFCC
vii)Yarborough v. Yarborough
(1)This one is a biI easier: jusI Georgia and S. Caro|ina.
(2)Chi|d supporI K. 2 courIs (GA and SC) mariIa| domici|e is GA and
IaIher in GA. Chi|d in SC aIIer divorce and GA courI enIered non-
modiIiab|e supporI order oI S170. SC ordered addiIiona| S0 a
monIh in chi|d supporI. F1 judgmenI said 170 is enIire judgmenI
and SC x orders 2
nd
judgmenI.
()S SC musI reso|ve as Io wheIher SC courI can ignore GA order.
SC said Ihey cou|d noI ignore judgmenI. FacI IhaI Ihere was a
Iina| decree meanI GA order was non-modiIiab|e and had Io be
given eIIecI. One sIaIe's judgmenI can prec|ude anoIher sIaIe Irom
ordering supporI Ior a chi|d domici|ed Ihere
(4)
74
() "|F]or a SIaIe's subsIanIive |aw Io be se|ecIed in a consIiIuIiona||y
permissib|e manner, IhaI SIaIe musI have a signiIicanI conIacI or a
signiIicanI aggregaIion oI conIacIs, creaIing sIaIe inIeresIs, such
IhaI choice oI |aw is neiIher arbiIrary nor IundamenIa||y unIair.
A||sIaIe v. Hague
viii) Congressiona| acIion Io deIermine FFCC in specia| circumsIances
(1)1980-178A: F2 musI give eIIecI Io chi|d cusIody agreemenI oI
F1. This inIeracIs wiIh sIaIe |aws.
(2)1994-178B Chi|d supporI: sIaIe musI give FFCC Io chi|d supporI
decree in a sIaIe IhaI has adopIed Ihe uniIorm Iami|y acI which
says Ihere sha|| on|y be one jx IhaI conIro|s chi|d's supporI order.
A|so, a|| chi|d supporI decrees are modiIiab|e now.
()1996-178C Same Sex marriage (DOMA)-says IhaI no sIaIe is
required Io give eIIecI Io any proceeding oI any oIher sIaIe
respecIing a re|aIionship beIween persons oI Ihe same sex.
(a)Permissive |anguage. PurporIs Io amend FFCC. This is
unnecessary bJc iI is noI a courI judgmenI, so FFCC does noI
app|y in Ihe same way. Marriages have a|ways been IreaIed as
choice oI |aw issue. SIaIes do noI have Io give eIIecI Io oIher
sIaIe's marriages, buI genera||y sIaIes have recognized
marriages Irom oIher sIaIes.
b) Fu|| FaiIh and CrediI Forec|osure oI JurisdicIiona| lssues (Prec|usion)
i) DurIee v. Duke-
(1)F-1: Nebraska SC he|d bJc Ihe change in Ihe course oI Ihe river
was Ihe resu|I oI avu|sion, Ihe boundary remained Ihe same and
Ihe |and was in Nebraska.
(2)F-2: Fed. CI oI Appea|s, on appea| Irom an acIion broughI in Fed.
DC in Missouri, he|d IhaI FFCC did noI prec|ude Missouri CI Irom
examining wheIher Ihe Nebraska decision was inva|id because oI
|ack oI subjecI maIIer jx.
ii) Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co.
(1)F-1: WashingIon ProbaIe CourI-Pe|kes is Ihe Owner
75
(2)F-2: ldaho SC-Wash judgmenI is inva|id Ior |ack oI jx, Mason is
Ihe owner
()F-: ldaho Federa| CourI lnIerp|eader-Mason is Ihe owner because
F- is required Io give Fu|| FaiIh and CrediI Io Ihe JudgmenI oI F-
2
(4)ResIaIemenI (2nd) oI JudgmenIs 1: lnconsisIenI JudgmenIs.
When in 2 acIions inconsisIenI Iina| judgmenIs are rendered, iI is
Ihe |aIer, noI Ihe ear|ier, judgmenI IhaI is accorded conc|usive
eIIecI in a Ihird acIion under Ihe ru|es oI res judicaIa.

lssue Fu||y
LiIigaIed
Appeared buI Did
NoI LiIigaIe Ihe
lssue
Did NoI Appear
Persona|
JurisdicIion
lI bound in F-1,
bound in F-2.
sua||y bound.
Ba|dwin
Appearance in F-1
usua||y a waiver. lI
bound in F-1, bound
in F-2.
CannoI be bound in F-1
because oI due
process. NoI bound in
F-2.
SubjecI
MaIIer
JurisdicIion
lI bound in F-1,
bound in F-2.
sua||y bound.
DurIee
lI bound in F-1,
bound in F-2.
sua||y bound.
nderwriIers, ChicoI
lI bound in F-1, bound
in F-2. Depends on
CircumsIances
iii) SecIion 178 requires IhaI judgmenIs in F-1 be given Ihe same eIIecI
in F-2 as Ihey have in F-1. ls Ihere an excepIion Io IhaI command
iI:
(1)F-1 misinIerpreIs Ihe |aw oI F-2 (FaunI|eroy)? |No]
(2)The F-1 decision is made aI a Iime aI which Ihe signiIicanI IuIure
inIeresIs oI F-2 are unknown (Yarborough)? |No, buI |egis|aIive
override]
()The F-1 decision is rendered wiIhouI persona| jurisdicIion? |Yes,
buI noI iI waived or Iu||y and Iair|y |iIigaIed]
(4)The F-1 decision is rendered wiIhouI subjecI maIIer jurisdicIion
(DurIee)? |Yes, buI noI iI Iu||y and Iair|y |iIigaIed (and probab|y noI
iI waivedJignored)]
76
()The F-1 judgmenI Iai|ed Io give Iu|| IaiIh and crediI Io a previous
judgmenI (Treinies)? |No-no excepIion]
c) Federa|JSIaIe RecogniIion oI JudgmenIs
i) Genera||y
(1)FF&C oI Ihe ConsIiIuIion and 28 SC 178 app|y Io recogniIion
oI STATE courI judgmenIs (does noI say anyIhing abouI Iedera|
courIs giving eIIecI Io oIher Iedera| courIs or sIaIe courIs giving
eIIecI Io Iedera| courIs)
(2)WhaI abouI recogniIion oI FEDERAL courI judgmenIs?
(a)Federa| CourI judgmenIs are a|so enIiI|ed Io prec|usive eIIecI
(b)ArIic|e lll & Supremacy C|ause
(i) Erie v. Tompkins-esIab|ished IhaI Ihere is no Iedera| CL oI
procedure in diversiIy cases. Designed Io prevenI Iorum
shopping. Federa| courI siIIing in diversiIy shou|d be virIua||y
Ihe same as sIaIe courI in same jx. Same subsIanIive |aw
app|ies-sIaIe in which is siIs is Ihe |aw IhaI app|ies. Fed.
Ru|es oI Civ Pro. govern procedure. Prob|em is IhaI is noI
a|ways easy Io Ie|| whaI is subsIanIive and whaI is
procedure.
ii) SemIek v. Lockheed
(1)CourI grapp|es wiIh issue prec|usion bJc iI is noI rea||y dea|I wiIh
in Iedera| ru|es-musI ask iI sIaIe |aws Ii|| in gap when Ihe Iedera|
CL does noI answer Ihe Q.
(2)Fed. courI siIIing in diversiIy here. lssue is whaI |aw deIermines
Ihe prec|usive eIIecI oI a CA Iedera| DC judgmenI in a |aIer
Mary|and sIaIe courI proceeding?
()CourI says: Federa| CL governs Ihe c|aim prec|usion eIIecI oI a
dismissa| by a Iedera| courI siIIing in diversiIy. Federa| CL
incorporaIes by reIerence Ihe |aw oI Ihe sIaIe in which Ihe Iedera|
courI is siIIing; CA's c|aim prec|usion ru|es app|y
(4)Prob|em wiIh Ihe case is discussion oI 41(b) is noI persuasive.
Sca|ia does noI wanI 41(b) Io be c|aim prec|usion ru|e. FacI IhaI a
c|aim is dismissed on meriIs mighI or mighI noI mean iI shou|d
77
have prec|usive eIIecI. lnIerpreIaIion oI 41(b) goes againsI usua|
inIerpreIaIion.
()A|so, IacI IhaI a MD courI is going Io IreaI a Iedera| decision
diIIerenI|y Ihan iI wou|d have IreaIed a sIaIe decision bJc oI Ihe
way SoL have been IreaIed is a prob|em. SoL deIerminaIions are
excepIion Io FFCC. SoL are procedura| and noI subsIanIive and
jusIiIied by idea IhaI SoL prevenIs remedy. BuI does noI e|iminaIe
under|ying righI.
(a)So iI CA has 2 yr. SoL, MD can say has yr SoL and can
give remedy regard|ess oI whaI CA courI wou|d do.
(6)BeIIer resu|I:
(a)MD courI wou|d give Ihe Ied. courI Ihe same IreaImenI iI wou|d
have accorded a judgmenI by a sIaIe courI in jx in which Ihe
Ied. courI was siIIing.
(b)Mary|and's sIaIuIe oI |imiIaIions wou|d Ihus be app|icab|e
(i) ReI|ecIion oI Ihe IreaImenI oI SoL as procedura| under
choice oI |aw ru|es and Ihus governed by Ihe |aw oI Ihe
Iorum
iii) Marrese v. American Acad. OrIhopaedic Surgeons
(1)Federa| courI is Irying Io decide whaI prec|usive eIIecI Io give Io
sIaIe courI's judgmenI and whaI ru|es govern Ihe prec|usive eIIecI.
SIaIe courI dismisses case Ior Iai|ure Io sIaIe a c|aim on which
re|ieI can be granIed
(2)P re-Ii|es in Iedera| courI a c|aim based on Ihe Sherman AcI,
which cou|d noI have been Ii|ed in sIaIe courI (Ied courIs have
exc|usive jx over Sherman)
()WhaI ru|es govern Ihe prec|usive eIIecI oI Ihe sIaIe courI's
judgmenI? How broad|y does Ihe sIaIe courI's judgmenI reach?
Re-Ii|ed c|aim cou|d noI have been Ii|ed in sIaIe courI.
(4)S. CourI says Iedera| courI shou|d use sIaIe prec|usion ru|es. YeI
no l||inois courI wi|| ever ru|e wheIher a Iedera| anIiIrusI acIion
shou|d be barred by a prior sIaIe courI proceeding. lL does have
78
sIaIe anIiIrusI |aw and Ds argue Ihey cou|d have broughI sIaIe
anIiIrusI COA in sIaIe cI.
()Fed. DC (on remand) goes wiIh ResIaIemenI ru|e, which says sIaIe
proceedings do noI bar subsequenI |awsuiIs wiIhin Ihe exc|usive jx
oI Ihe Ied. courIs

7)RecogniIion oI Foreign CounIry JudgmenIs
a) ComiIy & CodiIicaIion
i) Genera||y
(1)No FFCC here-does noI app|y Io lnIernaIiona| judgmenIs and
178 does noI app|y and Congress has never adopIed a |aw IhaI
dicIaIes recogniIion and enIorcemenIs oI inIernaIiona| courIs.
(2)We use CL and a web oI sIaIuIes (niIorm EnIorcemenI oI Foreign
S JudgmenI AcIs, eIc.) SIaIes adopIed Ihe uniIorm acI, buI noI
uniIorm|y.
()Res judicaIa (whaI prec|usive eIIecI does judgmenI oI Ioreign
naIion have?)
(4)Co||aIera| esIoppe| (lssue prec|usion-iI Ioreign courI decided some
issue, need a S courI give eIIecI Io IhaI deIerminaIion?)
()Forma|iIy preceding enIorcemenI (exequaIur)
ii) RaIiona|e Ior EnIorcemenI oI Foreign JudgmenIs
(1)Desirabi|iIy oI end Io |iIigaIion
(2)CreaIion oI vesIed righIs
()Ob|igaIions IhaI meriI supporI
(4)ComiIy-Irying Io give eIIecI oI inIeresIs oI individua| and ob|igaIion
imposed by Ioreign courI, eIc.
iii) RaIiona|e AgainsI EnIorcemenI oI Foreign JudgmenIs
(1)Genera| disIrusI oI oIher courIs (especia||y iI winning parIy is |oca|
Io F1, and Ihe |osing parIy is |oca| Io F2)
(2)Pub|ic po|icy concerns
()ReciprociIy
i) Hi|Ion v. GuyoI
79
(1)NY ciIizens doing business in France. Sued iI France. Appears and
|oses-owe French man S. P comes Io NY and Iries Io geI S.
(2)SC Iakes a midd|e ground-recogniIion and enIorcemenI shou|d noI
be auIomaIic, buI shou|d be avai|ab|e.
()RecogniIion & EnIorcemenI shou|d be granIed iI:
(a)Fu|| & Iair Iria| abroad
(b)CourI oI compeIenI jurisdicIion
(c)Tria| conducIed in accordance wiIh regu|ar proceedings
(d)NoIice oI |awsuiI given Io deIendanI
(e)SysIem oI jurisprudence |ike|y Io secure Iair resu|I
(I) No prejudice in Ihe courI
(g)No prejudice in sysIem oI |aws
(h)No Iraud in procuring Ihe judgmenI
(i) No oIher specia| reason mi|iIaIes againsI enIorcemenI
(j) F1 courI wou|d recognize F2 courI's judgmenI (ReciprociIy)-mosI
sIaIes have done away wiIh Ihis. Hi|Ions ended up winning here
bJc oI Ihe reciprociIy Q.
ii) niIorm Foreign Money-JudgmenIs RecogniIion AcI
(1)App|ies in 1 sIaIes (buI someIimes raIiIicaIions deparIed
signiIicanI|y Irom Ihe IexI oI Ihe uniIorm acI)
(a)Fina| judgmenIs
(b)Money judgmenIs on|y (no injuncIions)
(c)EnIorceab|e as iI a judgmenI oI a sisIer sIaIe
(d)n|ess an excepIion app|ies
(2)4(a) mandaIory non-recogniIion): A Ioreign judgmenI is noI
conc|usive iI:
(a)The judgmenI was rendered under a sysIem which does noI
provide imparIia| Iribuna|s or procedures compaIib|e wiIh Ihe
requiremenIs oI due process oI |aw
(b)The Ioreign courI did noI have persona| jurisdicIion over Ihe
deIendanI
(c)The Ioreign courI did noI have jurisdicIion over Ihe subjecI
maIIer
80
()4(b) (discreIionary non-recogniIion)-A Ioreign judgmenI need noI
be recognized iI:
(a)DeIendanI in Ihe proceedings did noI receive noIice oI Ihe
proceedings in suIIicienI Iime Io enab|e him Io deIend
(b)The judgmenI was obIained by Iraud
(c)The cause oI acIion is repugnanI Io Ihe pub|ic po|icy oI F2
(d)The judgmenI conI|icIs wiIh anoIher Iina| and conc|usive
judgmenI
(e)The proceeding in Ihe Ioreign courI was conIrary Io agreemenI
oI Ihe parIies Io reso|ve Ihe dispuIe e|sewhere
(I) ln a "Iag jurisdicIion case, Ihe Ioreign courI was a serious|y
inconvenienI Iorum Ior Iria| oI Ihe acIion (FMJRA was wriIIen
beIore Burnham)
(4)Persona| jurisdicIion judgmenI sha|| noI be reIused enIorcemenI
iI Ihe D:
(a)Was served persona||y in Ihe Ioreign sIaIe
(b)vo|unIari|y appeared, oIher Ihan Io proIecI properIy seized or Io
objecI Io jurisdicIion
(c)Had previous|y agreed Io submiI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI Ihe
Ioreign courI
(d)Was domici|ed in Ihe Ioreign sIaIe
(e)Had a business oIIice in Ihe Ioreign sIaIe and Ihe proceedings
arose ouI oI IhaI business
(I) OperaIed a moIor vehic|e or airp|ane in Ihe sIaIe and Ihe c|aim
arose ouI oI such operaIion
(g)was subjecI Io Ihe persona| jurisdicIion oI Ihe courI on oIher
grounds recognized by Ihe enIorcing sIaIe
i) ALl JudgmenIs ProjecI
(1)lI judgmenI debIor cha||enges Ihe jurisdicIion oI Ihe rendering
courI:
(a)Findings oI IacI perIinenI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI Ihe rendering
courI are conc|usive in Ihe proceeding in Ihe niIed SIaIes (|ike
sisIer sIaIe judgmenIs)
81
(b)Lega| deIerminaIions are conc|usive in Ihe proceedings in S as
Io Ihe jx oI Ihe rendering courI under Ihe |aw oI IhaI sIaIe
(c)BuI Ihe judgmenI debIor may show IhaI recogniIion or
enIorcemenI is unaccepIab|e because jx was unaccepIab|e
under oIher sIandards (e.g. .S. ConsIiIuIiona| sIandards).
b) OIher CounIries' approaches Io recogniIion & Ihe QuesIion oI JurisdicIion
i) Brusse|s Regu|aIion (Iormer|y Brusse|s & Lugano ConvenIions)
(1)Doub|e ConvenIion
(a)JurisdicIion
(b)JudgmenIs
(2)For domici|iaries oI SIaIes ParIies Io Ihe ConvenIion, jx can be
exercised on|y on |imiIed grounds, exc|uding "exorbiIanI bases oI
jx (have more proIecIion)
()For non-domici|iaries, jurisdicIion can be exercised pursuanI Io a
SIaIe's regu|ar criIeria, inc|uding "exorbiIanI bases
(a)i.e. Iag jx in K, jx under French civi| code re: injury Io French
naIiona| and quasi in rem jx in Germany over possessions as
proxy Ior you
(4)A|| judgmenIs oI SIaIes ParIies are enIorceab|e in every oIher
SIaIe ParIy regard|ess oI Ihe jurisdicIiona| basis emp|oyed
(a)lI l go Io K and served wiIh process, suIIer judgmenI Ihere,
judgmenI is enIorceab|e in any p|ace parIy Io convenIion.
ii) Hi|Ion v. GuyoI
(1)Hi|Ion and Libbey argued IhaI Ihey were compe||ed Io appear
beIore Ihe French courI Io deIend Iheir properIy. Jx over Ihem
Ihus was noI proper & ensuring judgmenI shou|d noI be
recognized
(2).S. S. CI. DeIendanIs had a sIorehouse and an agenI in Paris,
and were accusIomed Io purchase |arge quanIiIies oI goods Ihere
(a)They were Ihus subjecI Io Ihe jurisdicIion oI Ihe French courIs
iii) Nippon Emo-Trans Co., LId. v. Emo-Trans, lnc.
(1)EDNY (diversiIy) governed by NY |aw, inc|uding NY conI|icIs
princip|es. NET Ii|ed an acIion in Japan. Japanese courI Iound iI
82
had jurisdicIion over ETl, conducIed a Iria|, and awarded damages
againsI ETl. ETl parIicipaIed in Ihe Iria|
(2)NET came Io NY Io enIorce Ihe judgmenI. ETl cha||enged Ihe
Japanese courI's decision on Ihe ground IhaI iI |acked jurisdicIion.
ETl vo|unIari|y appeared in Tokyo by |iIigaIing Ihe case and Ihus
waived opporIuniIy Io objecI. QuesIion oI vo|unIariness is judged
by F2 (NY) sIandards
()nder Ihose sIandards appearance was vo|unIary
(a) (EDNY doesn'I rea||y |ike Ihis ouIcome, buI Ihinks iI is dicIaIed
by Ihe IexI oI Ihe sIaIuIe)
(4)However, even iI one were Io revisiI Ihe Tokyo courI's asserIion oI
jx, ETl wou|d |ose bJc asserIion oI jx was ok, a|beiI noI on Ihe
grounds asserIed by Tokyo courI
(a)D's duIy Io remiI paymenIs Io NET is an ob|igaIion Io be
perIormed in Japan
(b)Presence oI ETl's aIIi|iaIe in Japan, which assisIed in deIending
Ihe |awsuiI
()DespiIe genera| approva| oI prec|usive eIIecI aIIorded Io Ioreign
judgmenIs, iI is okay Io revisiI IhaI courI's deIerminaIion IhaI iI had
jurisdicIion
(6)Exercise oI jurisdicIion measured againsI NY sIandards
(a)NY Long-arm sIaIuIe
(b)S ConsIiIuIion (due process)
(7)ETl "did business in Japan suIIicienI Io supporI jurisdicIion
measured againsI boIh criIeria. EDNY Ihus uphe|d exercise oI
jurisdicIion by Ihe Tokyo courI
iv) How do we judge Ioreign courI's jx?
(1)ln Ioreign jx maIIers, usua||y Ihe courI app|ies iIs own sIandards
(i.e. Ihis case app|ies NY |aw)
(2)ln sisIer sIaIe judgmenIs, courIs answer Q under sIandards oI
rendering sIaIe.
c) Procedura| Fairness
i) Hi|Ion v. GuyoI
83
(1)D argued IhaI courI's judgmenI was noI enIiI|ed Io recogniIion bJc
iI vio|aIed due process (noI subjecI Io x-exam and docs submiIIed
as evidence wou|d noI be a||owed in S)
(2)CourI did noI compare French and S procedures. They said mere
IacI Ihere were diIIerences was noI enough Io impeach Ihe
judgmenI. CourIs in S reviewing judgmenIs Irom Ioreign sIaIes
are noI meanI Io be |ike appea|s courI (Ihey don'I have a||
inIoJrecord Io review in IoIa|).
()D argued IhaI decisions by French courI were based on Ia|se
sIaIemenIs. lI iI is a Iraud a||egaIion IhaI cou|d have been raised
in Ioreign courI, Ihen make argumenI beIore Ioreign courI,
oIherwise you |ose Ihis argumenI. On|y way Iraud cou|d be
grounds Ior second guessing judgmenI is iI you did noI and cou|d
noI have known abouI Iraud.
(4)Fu|| & Iair Iria| abroad
()Tria| conducIed in accordance wiIh regu|ar proceedings
(6)NoIice oI |awsuiI given Io deIendanI
(7)SysIem oI jurisprudence |ike|y Io secure Iair resu|I
(8)No prejudice in Ihe courI, No prejudice in sysIem oI |aws, No
Iraud in procuring Ihe judgmenI, No oIher specia| reason mi|iIaIes
againsI enIorcemenI
ii) Coo|ey v. Weinberger
(1)lssue-can wiIe who ki||ed her husband geI Socia| SecuriIy beneIiIs?
(a)Yes, iI ki||ing was noI a "Ie|onious and inIenIiona| homicide
(b)No, iI ki||ing was a Ie|onious and inIenIiona| homicide
(2)Coo|ey ki||ed her H in lran, where she was convicIed oI having
commiIIed "wi||Iu| homicide. CourI Iinds IhaI D's argumenIs do noI
show IhaI lran's sysIem is IoIa||y inadequaIe, nor does she show
IhaI she herse|I did noI geI a Iare Iria| Ihere.
()Coo|ey's argumenIs: ConvicIion obIained by meIhods IhaI did noI
comporI wiIh due process and were so shocking in naIure IhaI
Ihey shou|d noI be recognized by Ihe courIs oI Ihe niIed SIaIes.
She was:
84
(a)NoI a||owed Io consu|I wiIh her aIIorney
(b)NoI advised oI her righIs (no "Miranda)
(c)Denied Ihe righI Io posI bai|
(d)Never indicIed
(e)NoI given Ihe righI Io cross-examine wiInesses
(I) NoI proven gui|Iy "beyond a reasonab|e doubI
(g)She a|so submiIIed evidence IhaI she was noI IreaIed we||.
iii) Bank Me||i lran v. Pah|avi
(1)Ca|iIornia Code 171-171.8-RecogniIion and enIorcemenI
prohibiIed when rendered by a courI in vio|aIion oI due process
(2)Banks aIIempI Io enIorce civi| (deIau|I) judgmenIs worIh
S2,000,000.
()Pah|avi's DeIense: lranian judgmenIs given in a manner IhaI did
noI accord wiIh basics oI due process
(a)SpeciIics oI Process Accorded:
(i) Service by pub|icaIion in lran
(ii)DeIau|I judgmenIs rendered on promissory noIes
(iii)NoI much evidence Io show Ihere was anyIhing wrong wiIh
Ihese proceedings as such (no a||egaIion IhaI she |acked
acIua| noIice, Ior examp|e)
(4)Did Pah|avi show IhaI she did noIJcou|d noI geI due process in
lran?
(a)Pah|avi's evidence:
(i) Consu|ar inIormaIion sheeIs re anIi-American senIimenI and
prob|ems Ior dua| naIiona|s
(ii)lran is sIaIe sponsor oI Ierrorism
(b)CourI ru|ed in her Iavor and did noI recognize judgmenI.
CourI's evidence
(i) Tria|s rare|y he|d in pub|ic and are high|y po|iIicized
(ii)Judges are noI independenI
(iii)S c|aimanIs have |iII|e expecIaIion oI jusIice
(iv)AIIy are discouraged Irom represenIing po|iIica||y charged D
85
()Judicia| esIoppe| argumenI: Pah|avi argued Iorum non conveniens
in anoIher unre|aIed case on Ihe grounds IhaI lran was Ihe
appropriaIe Iorum. Here she argues IhaI lran is comp|eIe|y
unsuiIab|e Iorum
d) SubsIanIive DeIenses & Ihe Hague Choice oI CourIs ConvenIion
i) Bachchan v. lndia Abroad Pubs lnc.
(1)lndian naIiona| insIiIuIes proceedings againsI a New York pub|isher
seeking recogniIion oI an Eng|ish judgmenI rendered againsI Ihe
pub|isher Ior having pub|ished an arIic|e deIaming Bachchan
(2)P|ainIiII in K & NY Bachchan (deIamed lndian naIiona|).
DeIendanI in K & NY lndian Abroad lnc (.S.) NY news
operaIor & pub|isher
()lndia Abroad (NY): D's New York newspaper. lndia Abroad (K):
D's Eng|ish subsidiary. lndia Abroad (London): London newspaper
pub|ished by lAK. Dagens NyjeIer (Sweden): newspaper IhaI
iniIia||y pub|ished sIory deIamaIory Io p|ainIiII (seII|ed case &
apo|ogized)
(4)Was Ihe "COA on which judgmenI was based conIrary Io pub|ic
po|icy oI NY?
(a)D argued IhaI iI was imposed wiIhouI Ihe saIeguards Ior
Ireedom oI speech and Ihe press required by Ihe 1
sI

AmendmenI Io Ihe S ConsIiIuIion and Ihe NY ConsIiIuIion
(b)P argued (1) Causes oI acIion in |ibe| are cognizab|e by Ihe
|aw oI NY and Ihus noI conIrary Io pub|ic po|icy and (2) even iI
courI is |ooking Io Ihe judgmenI, raIher Ihan Io Ihe cause oI
acIion, NY shou|d recognize Ihe judgmenI given Ihe common
anIecedenIs oI Ihe |aw oI GreaI BriIain & NY
()Eng|ish |ibe| |aw: Any pub|ished sIaIemenI IhaI adverse|y aIIecIs a
person's repuIaIion is prima Iacie deIamaIory. P's burden is Io
esIab|ish IhaI :
(a)The words comp|ained-oI reIer Io Ihem
(b)They were pub|ished by Ihe D; and
(c)They bear a deIamaIory meaning
86
(d)There is no disIincIion beIween privaIe persons and pub|ic
Iigures. None are required Io prove Ia|siIy oI Ihe |ibe| or |iab|e.
None have Io prove Ihe media D inIenIiona||y or neg|igenI|y
disregarded proper journa|isIic sIandards
(6) S |ibe| |aw: Pub|ic Iigures have Io surmounI a much higher
barrier Io recover damages Irom a media D. Even privaIe Iigures
(|ike|y Ihe case here) bear Ihe burden oI showing
(a)Fa|siIy, as we|| as
(b)Fau|I.
(c)P|acing burden oI prooI on media Ds is unconsIiIuIiona|
because Iear oI |iabi|iIy may deIer such speech. NY's sIandard
Ior |iabi|iIy in acIions broughI by privaIe persons againsI Ihe
press in a maIIer oI pub|ic concern musI esIab|ish, by a
preponderance oI Ihe evidence, IhaI Ihe pub|isher acIed in a
gross|y irresponsib|e manner
(7) EnIorcing a judgmenI Irom abroad wou|d have a chi||ing eIIecI on
media Ds in vio|aIion oI Ihe S ConsIiIuIion. P was noI required Io
show IhaI Ihe media D was aI Iau|I, Ihereby Iai|ing Io meeI S
ConsIiIuIiona| sIandards and NY sIandards
ii) Hague Choice oI CourIs ConvenIion
(1)RemnanI oI Ihe aspired-Io ConvenIion on Ihe RecogniIion &
EnIorcemenI oI JudgmenIs
(2)LimiIed Io
(a)business-Io-business
(b)IransnaIiona| conIracIs
(c)IhaI inc|ude a Iorum-se|ecIion c|ause
()CourI chosen by Ihe parIies in an exc|usive choice-oI-courI
agreemenI has jurisdicIion
(4)OIher courIs musI dec|ine Io hear Ihe case
()A judgmenI derived Irom Ihe courI wiIh exc|usive jurisdicIion musI
be recognized and enIorced in Ihe courIs oI oIher conIracIing
SIaIes
87
(6)These ob|igaIions are subjecI Io Iami|iar excepIions, such as pub|ic
po|icy; a|so exc|udes puniIive or exemp|ary damages judgmenIs

88

Long Outline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Long Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fall 2011 Ethan Moore

You might also like