1. Vested Rights/Traditional/1st Restatement/Lex Loci Delicti/Torts-Place of the Injury (NC/SC/VA/WV)
2. Currie's Gov't Interest Analysis (CA)
3. Neumeier Rules for Loss Allocation (Builds on Caver's Principles of Preferences) (NY)
4. Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations (WI)
5. 2d Restatement/MSR (FL/IL/NJ/TN)
6. Forum Preference/Lex Fori (KY)
7. Combination (DC/IND)

1. Whether there is a cause of action;
2. Defenses;
3. Damages

1. Was there an actual conflict - or - Are the laws of the states different?  
2. What are the policies of State 1 - or - Did State 1 have a significant gov't interest?  
3. What are the policies of State 2 - or - Did State 2 have a significant gov't interest?  
4. Which state had the greater interest?  

** Currie would NOT have weighed the interests, but would have gone w/ the forum.  

*Done on Issue-by-Issue Basis

1. Determine whether an actual conflict exists b/w the laws of the states in question for that particular issue, if so;
2. Determine the interest that each state has in resolving that particular issue (if only one state has an interest, there is a false conflict); and
3. Compare and weigh the interests of all the states to determine which state has the MSR to the occurrence and the parties w/ respect to that issue.  

1. Conduct-Regulating rules; and
2. Loss-Allocating rules

1. Rules of the Road
2. Statutory Standards of Care

**Generally, place of situs controls

1. Charitable Immunity; 
2. Host/Guest Statute; 
3. Vicarious Liability; 
4. P's Fault; and 
5. Workers' Compensation

Applies when:

1. The parties are domiciled in different states; 
2. The situs of the tort is in a state which a party is domiciled in; and
3. The local law favors the respective domiciliary.  

**Adopts a "place of injury test" if there is home field advantage.

Applies when:

1. Parties are domiciled in different states; 
2. Rule 2 does NOT apply; and
3. There are conflicting laws.  

Law of the situs applies unless displacing law will advance relevant substantive law purpose w/out impairing:

1. Smooth working of multi-state system; or
2. Producing great uncertainty for litigants.  

Law of place of injury will apply unless displacing with the law of another state:

1. Would advance the relevant substantive law purposes; and
2. Would NOT: 1) Impair the smooth working of the multi-state system; or 2) Produce great uncertainty for litigants.  

1. Predictability of Results;
2. Maintenance of Interstate and International Order; 
3. Simplification of Judicial Task; 
4. Advancement of Forum Gov't's Interests; and
5. Application of the Better Rule of Law

1. Section 6 - General Principles
2. Section 145 - Tort Contacts
3. Section 146 - Presumption - Personal Injury
4. Section 122 - Issues Relating to Judicial Administration (Law of Forum)
5. Section 138 - Evidence (Law of Forum)
6. Section 139 Privileged Communications (Pro-Admission)

**Presumption - Place of injury controls unless another state has MSR unde Section 6 to parties and occurrence.

1. Needs of interstate/international systems;
2. Relevant policies of forum;
3. Relevant policies and interests of other interested states in particular issue; 
4. Protection of parties' justified expectations; 
5. Basic policies underlying the field of law; 
6. Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result; and
7. Ease of determination of law to be applied.  

1. Place of Injury; 
2. Place of Conduct; 
3. Domicile, headquarters, etc.;
4. Center of Relationship

1. KY courts do not like to "displace" KY law;
2. KY courts will apply KY law if there are significant contacts - not necessarily the most significant contacts - w/ KY
3. NOT just ANY contacts but SIGNIFICANT contacts

1. If the accident occurs in KY that alone is enough;
2. If BOTH parties are residents of KY AND the only relationship to the case to another state is that the accident happened there.  

1. Gov't Interests Analysis;
2. Plus 2d Restatement

1. Is there an actual conflict - Are laws different?  
2. Is there a "false conflict" - Does only one state have a real interest?  
3. Which state has the greater interest?  

DC uses Currie Plus:

1. Currie Analysis
2. Counts contacts found in §145 of 2d Restatement

Uses 1st Restatement Plus:

1. Three Steps
2. Also counts contacts in §145.

1. Presumption of Place of Injury is not conclusive (differs from 1st Restatement)
2. Presumption overcome if court persuaded that "place of tort bears little connection to this legal action"
3. If P and D domiciled in same state, that state's law will generally apply.  

Ind 1st Restatement Plus

If location is insignificant (3)

Court should consider other contacts that may be more relevant and looks to 2d Restatement §145(2)

1. Place where conduct causing injury occurred; 
2. Residence or place of business of parties; and
3. Place where relationship is centered

*Not exclusive nor necessarily relevant

**All contacts "should be evaluated"

1. Jurisdiction and Venue (JV) States
2. Contact States (w/ factual contact)
3. Which states are both JV and Contact states
4. Desired Law
5. How to achieve desired result w/ conflict law

1. Minimum Contacts w/ D
2. Venue established by statute/rule

1. Where do players reside
2. Where did it happen
3. Where did injury and conduct occur

1. Look at laws of all JV/Contact states
2. Which state has laws that benefit your C

1. What are the conflicts rules in JV/Contact states
2. What are the results from applying those rules

1. Forum law applies to procedural matters
2. Forum law applies to choice-of-law
3. Forum determines if true conflict exist (law not same)
4. Forum characterizes the issue
5. Forum will look for loophole/escape devices

1. Identifying the Issue
2. Characterizing the Issue
3. The Choice-of-Law Approach for the Jurisdiction
4. What State Supreme Court says about approach
5. Escape devices that can provide loophole 
6. Jurisdiction and Venue Limits for P's Filing Options

1. Traditional 1st Restatement - VA/WV/NC/SC
2. Currie's Gov't Interest - CA
3. NY's Neumeier Rules - NY
4. Leflar's Choice Influencing Considerations - WI
5. 2d Restatement/MSR - FL/IL/NJ/TN
6. Forum Preference - KY
7. Eclectic/Combo - DC/IN

1. Procedural v. Substantive Label
2. Public Policy
3. Depecage
4. Renvoi
5. Domicile
6. Proof of Foreign Law 
7. Crimes
8. General Characterization

1. Procedural Rules/Practices
2. Matters of Remedy 

1. Court usually applies own local law re how litigation is conducted, even when applying local law rules of another state to resolve other issues in the case.  
2. Forum will apply even if outcome determinative
3. Forum court more concerned w/ judicial machinery functions and court processes than any other state
4. It would be disruptive/burdensome not to do so
5. Parties have no expectations re such matters

1. The proper form of action;
2. Execution and costs
3.  Mode of Trial; 
4. Pleading;
5. Rules of Discovery; and
6. Service of process

1. Loss-Allocating v. Conduct-Regulating
2. Which meets the Neumeier rules

Law of Forum determines admissibility of evidence EXCEPT

1. Privileged Communications;
2. Integrated Ks (PER); and
3. SOF

1. Evidence NOT privileged in MSR state will be admitted, even if privileged in Forum (unless contrary to strong Forum public policy)
2. Evidence privileged in MSR state, NOT privileged in Forum, will be admitted unless special reason for not admitting.  

1. Number and nature of contacts of forum w/ parties of transaction
2. Materiality of Evidence 
3. Kind of Evidence
4. Fairness to parties

1. That is well established and recognized in many states;
2. That was probably relied upon by the parties

Ex. A-C Privilege

1. Which is MSR state?
2. Is evidence privileged under MSR law?  
3. Is evidence privileged under Forum Law?

• Favors ADMISSION 
• To be privileged - MSR and Forum have to agree

1. If forum SOL bars claim, claim is barred even if NOT barred in state where claim arose
2. If forum SOL does NOT bar claim, claim is NOT barred even if barred in state where claim arose

In general, unless exceptional circumstances of case make such a result unreasonable:

1. Forum will apply its own SOL barring claim UNLESS;
2. Maintenance of claim would serve no substantial interest of Forum; AND
3. Claim would be barred under SOL of state w/ MSR to parties and occurrence

Those which

1. Prohibit,
2. Assign, 
3. or Limit Liability after the tort occurs

1. Parties share common domicile;
2. Law of common domicile controls

1. Parties domiciled in different states;
2. Tort occurred in state where 1 party domiciled; 
3. Local law favors respective domiciliary

1. Parties domiciled in different states w/ conflicting local laws; 
2. Law of situs of tort usually applies unless "displacing normally applicable rule will advance relevant substantive law purposes w/out impairing smooth working of the multi-state system or producting great uncertainty for litigants.  

1. Other law would violate some NY fundamental principle of justice AND
2. Enough significant contacts to implement NY's public policy

• NY Contacts that Matter (2)

1. Place of Injury
2. Domicile

1. Predictability of Results;
2. Maintenance of Reasonable Orderliness and Good Relationship Among the States; 
3. Simplification of Judicial Task; 
4. Advancement of Forum's Interests Rather than that of Other States; and
5. Better/Sounder Rule of Law

1. Better Rule of Law NOT found in MSR
2. No presumptions in Leflar

1. Grouping of contacts approach; 
2. Policy and interest considerations; 
3. Compromise b/w rules approach of 1st Rest and interest analysis of 2d

1. § 6 - General Principles
2. §145 - General Tort Princple & Ks
3. §146 - Presumption that place in injury controls in person injury cases unless other state has MSR under §6
4. §122 - Issues re Judicial Administration - Law of Forum Applies
5. §138 - Evidence - Law of Forum Applies
6. §139 - Privileged Communications - Pro Admission

1. Needs of interstate/international systems;
2. Relevant policies of the forum; 
3. Relevant policies/interests of other interested states in particular issue; 
4. Protection of parties; justified expectations; 
5. Basic policies underlying the field of law;
6. Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result; and
7. Ease of determination of law to be applied.  

1. Place of injury; 
2. Place of conduct; 
3. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business parties; AND
4. Center of relationship.  

1. Principle place of business; and
2. Place of incorporation

1. Is there an actual conflict?  
2. §146 Presumption - Place of injury controls unless another state w/ MSR per §6
3. Apply §145
4. Apply §6 

1. Interests of interstate comity; 
2. Interests of the parties; 
3. Interests underlying the field of law; 
4. Interests of judicial administration; and
5. Competing interests of the states.

1. Not weighing interests, but looking to see if KY has enough contacts to warrant applying KY law; 
2. Accident occurring in KY enough for KY law;
3. BOTH parties residents of KY and only relationship w/ foreign state is accident is enough for KY law;

1. Currie Analysis;
2. Count 2d Rest §145 Factual Contacts

1. Ct must determine whether the differences b/w laws of states are "important enough to affect outcome of litigation"
2. If this exists, PRESUMPTION of lex loci delicti rule
3. Presumption is NOT conclusive, can be overcome if place of tort bears little connection to the legal action

• Domiciled in same state gen. enough to satisfy presumption

IN - 1st Rest + - If Location Insignificant (4)

1. Ct should consider factual contacts of 2d Rest §145;
2. Place where conduct causing injury occurred; 
3. Residence and place of business of parties; and
4. Place where relationship is centered.

• Not exclusive nor necessarily relevant
• All contacts "should be evaluated"

1. 1st Rest - Yes
2. NY - Yes, if significant contacts to NY
3. IND 1st Rest+ - Yes
4. Leflar - Yes, under Better Rule of Law Approach
5. KY Forum Preference - Yes
6. Currie - Yes
7. 2d Rest - Technically, No, but some courts still rely on it

1. Evaluate factual contacts (similar to 2d Rest §145) (5)
2. Determine interest of states w/ contacts to the issue - more than 1 - Leflar's Influencing Considerations (5) must be examined - w/ clear winner or neutral

1. Place where injury occurred;
2. Place where conduct causing injury occurred;
3. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of parties;
4. Place where relationship, if any, b/w parties is centered; and
5. Where the car, if any, was garaged

1. Predictability of results;
2. Maintenance of interstate/international order;
3. Simplification of judicial task;
4. Advancement of the Forum's Gov't Interests; and
5. Application of better rule of law

1. FFC does NOT require state in cases involving people and events w/in it to substitute another state's statute for its own dealth w/ subject matter it is competent to litigate; 
2. FFC does NOT require Forum state to apply law of another state when doing so would violate forum state's own legitimate public policy

1. Forum state barred from applying own law when NO significant contact/significant aggregation of contacts creates a state interest, w/ the parties and the occurrences of transaction
2. Forum state cannot apply forum law if in doing so it is adopting a policy of hostility to public acts of another state

1. Tort
2. Breach of K

1. Predictability of Results; 
2. Maintenance of Interstate/International Order;
3. Simplification of Judicial Task; 
4. Advancement of Forum's Gov't Interests; and
5. Application of Better Rule of Law

1. Predictability of Results; and
2. Simplification of Judicial Task

Advancement of Forum Gov't's Interests

Its the duty of the courts to further the legitimate gov't policies of the Forum.  

1. Public Policy; OR
2. If law is deemed as archaic, anachronistic, or not keeping up w/ the times.  

1. Relevant Policies of the Forum; 
2. Relevant Policies and Interests of Interested States as it Relates to the Relevant Issues; 
3. Basic Policies Underlying the Field of Law; and
4. Ease in Determination and Application of Law

1. FFC does not require the state, in cases dealing w/ people and events w/in it, to substitute another state's statute for its own statute dealing w/ subject matter it is competent to legislate; and
2. FFC does not require state to apply law of another state when doing so would violate a legitimate public policy of the state.  

1. Procedural v. Substantive Characterization; 
2. Public Policy; 
3. Depecage; 
4. Renvoi; 
5. Domicile; 
6. Proof of Foreign Law; 
7. Crimes; 
8. General Characterization 

1. When other state's law is repugnant to forum; and
2. Characterized as either tort, contract, or family law

1. Contrary; 
2. Repugnant;
3. Obnoxious; 
4. Offends; 
5. Frustrates; 
6. Violates; 
7. Mere Difference NOT ENOUGH

1. Legislative Enactments; 
2. Judicial Decisions; 
3. Constitution

1. Cause of action is a K; 
2. MD has MSR or substantial relationship; AND
3. State where the K was entered into would apply MD law.  

1. Physical Act; AND
2. Intent

1. Contacts; 
2. Driver's License; 
3. Hunting License; 
4. Extended Presence in State; 
5. Tax Return in State; 
6. Homestead Tax in State; 
7. Registered to Vote; 
8. Declaration in Will.  

1. Prisoner in a Jail
2. Military Serviceman Stationed 
3. Military Spouse

1. Where civil/political rights are exercised; 
2. Where taxes are paid; 
3. Where real and personal property is located; 
4. Where licenses are obtained; 
5. Where bank accounts are maintained; 
6. Where club and church memberships are; 
7. Where employed.  

1. Common Law prevails in Foreign Jurisdiction; 
2. Law of Foreign Jurisdiction same as Forum Law; 
3. Certain fundamental principles of law exists in all civilized countries; OR
4. By failing to plead and prove Foreign Law, parties acquiesced to having Forum Law apply

1. Only state w/ jurisdiction was state where crime was completed; 
2. State may only punish for crimes committed w/in its border

1. Where D was physically located when committed vital act; AND
2. Where effects or results of D's vital acts occured

1. State where D was located when he acted; AND
2. State where effect on victim occurred

1. Vested Rights/Traditional/1st Restatement/Lex Loci Contractus - SC/NC*/TN/VA/WV*
2. Grouping of Contacts (Auten) + 2nd Restatement - NY
3. Currie's Gov't Interest Analysis + 2nd Restatement - DC
4. 2nd Restatement/MSR - KY
5. Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations - WI/MN

*Follows Modified 2nd Restatement §187 for Ks w/ COL Provisions

1. Procedural v. Substantive (2nd - MJA); 
2. Public Policy THE BIGGIE
3. Depecage
4. Renvoi
5. Domicile
6. Proof of Foreign Law
7. Crimes 
8. General Characterization

1. Capacity;
2. Consideration; 
3. Fraud; 
4. Illegality 

1. Party's expressly chose another state's laws to apply; 
2. K is to be performed in another state and the party's envision that state's laws will apply

1. Is there an actual conflict?  
2. If gov't interests are involved - determine which state has MSR using 2nd Restatement §6 principles
3. If not gov't interests involved - look at §188 and count contacts 

1. Place of Contracting
2. Place of Negotiating 
3. Place of Performance 
4. Location of Subject Matter of K
5. Domicile of Contracting Parties

*Usually if Place of Contracting and Place of Performance the same, that state's law will apply

1. §196 Rendition of Services K - Place of performance or MSR
2. §§189-190 Land K - Location of land or MSR
3. Insurance K - Location of Insured Risk or MSR

• If person - person's domicile or MSR
• If land - location of land or MSR
• If car - where car garaged or MSR

1. Capacity - §§187 & 188 control, but usually party's domicile
2. Formalities - §§187 & 188 control, but usually place of execution
3. Illegality - §§187 & 188 control, but usually illegal if illegal in place of performance

1. Validity - §§187 & 188 control
2. Measure of Recovery - §§187 & 188 control

1. Parties to K can choose which law will apply to K
2. Courts will generally uphold the law chosen by the parties w/ exceptions 

1. Place of Contracting
2. Place of Negotiation
3. Place of Performance
4. Location and Subject Matter of K
5. Domicile of Contracting Parties

* Use w/ General Principles of §6

Follows §187, but requires:

1. A reasonable basis for party's chosen state; 
2. The law of the chosen state does not violate a fundamental public policy of the state or violate a law

WV will recognize the presumptive validity of a COL provision

1. Unless the provision bears no substantial relationship to the chosen jurisdiction; OR
2. The application of the laws of the chosen jurisdiction would offend the public policy of the state

COL Provision Will Not Be Given Effect Unless

1. When the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction; 
2. When the application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental public policy of the state whose law would apply in the absence of a COL provision

3.  

1. If matter involved validity and interpretation, law of place of contracting controls
2. If matter involved performance or breach, law of place of performance controls
3. Public Policy exception

NY Court will NOT enforce provision if there is

1. Fraud
2. Violation of Public Policy; or
3. Lack of Sufficient Contacts

1. Another state has a MSR to parties and transaction than chosen state; 
2. MSR has materially greater interest than the chosen state in deciding issues re the K
3. Whether MSR has a substantial fundamental policy that would be contravened by applying the law of the chosen state

1. Formalities required; 
2. Capacity of parties; 
3. Interpretation of conveyance;
4. Effect of conveyance

1. Validity and effect of conveyance of interest in a chattel is determined by laws of state w/ MSR to parties, chattel, and conveyance under §6
2. If no COL provision, location of chattel at time of conveyance gives most weight

1. Validity of will that conveys interest in movable property controlled by law of the state of T's domicile
2. Validity of will that conveys interest in immovable property property controlled by law of situs of immovable property 

If marriage valid under law of state where celebrated, then it will be recognized as valid in every other state EXCEPT:

1. When marriage is invalid under law of state where either party was domiciled as either
2.  Crime that goes against laws of nature
3. Offends the domicile state's public policy

1. Validity of marriage will be determined by the local law of the state which, w/ respect to the particular issue, has the MSR to the spouses and the principles stated in §6; 
2. A marriage which satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was conducted will everywhere be recognized
3. UNLESS it violates a strong public policy of another state which had the MSR to the spouses and the marriage at the time of marriage

Party who acquiesced in or participated in divorce is estopped from challenging later based on lack of jurisdiction    

1. Jurisdiction to divorce may be exercised unilaterally based on domicile of spouse present in state;
2. Same court may not conclusively determine non-present spouse's support obligation or property rights 

Means to establish and enforce child support obligations and spousal support obligations across state lines    

Once a court enters a support decree w/ jurisdiction, it is the only body entitled to modify so long as it retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the act

Another state, while required by UIFSA to enforce the existing decree, has NO power under the Act to modify or enter support at a different level

1. To issue; AND
2. To modify a child support order

8.     Any Other Basis Permitted by the Constitution

2.     Parties have AGREED to another state entering a controlling order

1. UIFSA requires a state to recognize and enforce registered child support orders issued by another state, just as it would an order issued by one of its own courts
2. Support order issued by another state is registered for enforcement when the order is filed in registering tribunal of that state
3. Presumption is that Registered Order is valid

7.     Statute of Limitations

Rights and Obligations Associated w/ Status of Parent and Child – Incidents generally governed by where the parties are when they exercise these incidents 

2.     If NO home state, the “significant connection” state

Only ONE state can have jurisdiction

State in which child immediately lived preceding time involved LIVED w/ parents, a parent, or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months    

3.     In the best interest of the child, that court in that state shall assume jurisdiction

State does not have to comply w/ the PKPA to determine that it has jurisdiction over a custody case, BUT if a state wants other states to honor its order based on FFC, a state MUST follow jurisdictional requirements of PKPA

3.     To stop national epidemic of parental kidnapping by eliminating incentive for one parent to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction

o   Even if in state only b/c in jail – still state of residence (not domicile)

Under UCCJEA, NOT necessary for court to obtain personal jurisdiction over BOTH parents in order for the court to issue valid child custody order

·      Once a judgment exists, other states are generally bound to enforce that judgment under the “finality rules” of the state that RENDERED the judgment

Second State MUST respect judgment rendered by First State unless First State judgment has (2):

2.     Defects under Constitution (one of 6 exceptions) 

6.     Non-Final Orders. 

A sister state’s decree concerning land ownership in another state has been held ineffective to transfer title.  

Res Judicata applied to a judgment involving subject matter jurisdiction when the party below COULD HAVE raised the issue and had it finally determined.  

FFC permitted collateral attack on judgment based on fraud.  

FFC does NOT REQUIRE one state to respect/honor a sister state’s criminal judgment

Strictly and properly, are those imposing punishment for an offense committed against the state, if there is a penal law and penal judgment, that judgment is NOT entitled to enforcement in another state 

Huntington – Test for Penal Judgment 

Wrong to the Public or to the Individual – What is the purpose of the law upon which the judgment is based (2):

2.     To afford private remedy to person injured by wrongful act (civil) 

Ingalls Shipbuilding – Statute involving paying money is penal IF (3):

3.     Statute meant to address harm to public, not individual 

Basis for voluntary enforcement or recognition by one state of the judicial proceedings of a sister state    

ONLY a FINAL judgment or decree is entitled to FFC    

Collateral Attack on Judgment 

Attack on judgment in subsequent, totally different proceeding, not by appealing 

2.     Constitutional defects (6 exceptions) 

1. Focuses on what party admitted in the proceedings and to prevent party from contradicting admissions
2. Ends controversy over other issues
3. Requires full litigation
4. May preclude relitigation of same issue in a later suit on any cause of action
5.  If on same side (not adverse) not precluded

1. D must be present in state; OR
2. D must have certain minimum contacts w/ the state such that the maintenance of a lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and the party must receive fair and adequate notice of the case (International Shoe) 

1. Enter special appearance and fight personal jurisdiction
2. Don’t appear at all and suffer a default judgment – collaterally attack elsewhere

1. Federal courts followed local common law
2. If none, could fashion own federal common law if Q involved general law.  

1. No federal common law
2. Federal court in diversity applies 1) state law to substantive issues and 2) federal law to procedural issues    

1. Outcome Determinative Test
2. Federal court should follow state law if outcome determinative 
3. Very broad test 
4. Almost anything procedural can be outcome determinative 

Court narrowed Guaranty Trust Outcome Determinative Test

1. Rules defining state-created rights – apply state law
2. Rules bound up w/ defining state-created rights – apply state law
3. Rules as to form and mode – apply state law if outcome determinative

Many states have adopted procedures whereby federal courts can certify unsettled questions to the state courts 

·      Hanna – Two-Prong Test When Federal Rule Present (6):

1. Is there applicable FRCP that governs? 
2. If yes, is there “direct collision” b/w federal and state law? 
3. If state law can be followed b/c FRCP is NOT as broad, then NO collision. 
4. IF collision b/w federal and state law, court determines if Federal Rule valid under Enabling Act? 
5. If so – federal rule controls
6. FRCP rules NO LONGER EXAMINED under OD Test

1.  Erie Labeling – State law applied to substantive matters and federal law to procedural matters
2. Guaranty Trust – OD Test
3. Byrd – Form and Mode – Modified OD Test w/ balancing interests at least w/ judge/jury relations and strong possibility outcome affected
4. Hanna – Relied on Twin Aims of Erie to again modify OD Test, 2-Step Analysis: 1) valid FRCP rule, 2) not subject to Erie
5. Woods – Labeling is back