Conflicts of Law, Fall 2010
1) Traditional Approaches, 1st Restatement
a) Background
i) Territorialism - a state can only act on people and things within their territory
(Pennoyer)
ii) First Restatement
(1) Step 1 - characterize the issue
(2) Step 2 - find rule applying to issue and identify connecting factor
(3) Step 3 - Apply law identified by connecting factor
(4) i.e. the connecting factor for torts under the 1st rest. is "the place of the wrong"
(5) Generally policy-blind; public policy of fellow-servant rule is not followed in
Carroll
b) Torts
i) Alabama Great So. R.R. v. Carroll - nonintentional tort
(1) Ala., 1892
(2) Plaintiff (Carroll) - citizen of AL; Defendant - AL corporation; K was made in
Alabama
(3) Facts: Link in freight trains broke and Plaintiff was injured in Mississippi, was
determined to be defective when it left Alabama; employer was to inspect the links
in Alabama and along the route to Mississippi; Plaintiff alleged the connecting
factor was the negligence that occurred in Alabama
(4) AL - has statute that allows recovery against employer (Employer Liability Act);
forum, plaintiff, defendant RR, K, performance, negligent conduct
(5) MS - no employer liability (fellow-servant rule); performance, accident
(6) Result: Court finds no actual injury occurred in Alabama, any action should have
been brought in Mississippi; also, MS law would apply because in a tort action we
look to the place of the injury.
ii) Marra v. Bushee - intentional tort
(1) Alienation of affections case
(2) VT - forum, recovery allowed; defendant, seduction
(3) NY - no cause of action for alienation; plaintiff, marital domicile
(4) Connecting factor: place of the CONDUCT
(5) Case analyzes where the place of injury/place if the harm may lie
(6) Court says first restatement does not distinguish between intentional and
unintentional torts
(7) Place of conduct controls when considering an intentional tort
(8) i.e. defamation, fraud, poisioning
iii) RULE: place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an
actor liable for an alleged tort takes place
c) Contracts
i) All issues except the manner of performance and damages are governed by the place of
contracting (damages = place of performance)
ii) The forum should use common law rules to select the place where the principal event
necessary to make a contract occurs
iii) Poole v. Perkins
(1) VA. Sup. Ct, 1919 (Before the 1st Rest.)
(2) Poole had signed a promissory note (in TN) to be payable to Perkins in Virginia.
Poole defaulted on the loan, and Perkins instituted a collection action against her.
Poole raised the defense of coverture (inability of a wife to enter into contracts), but
the trial court decided to use VA law and Poole appealed.
(3) TN: forum; Poole signature, Defendant residence, K signed and delivered --> law
of coverture, contract would be unenforceable
(4) VA: Poole and Perkins both now live here, performance/payment --> no incapacity
rules
(5) Connecting factor = place of contracting (where the contract is made, unless it is to
be performed in another place then that law will apply) so in this case PLACE OF
PERFORMANCE
(6) Result: The note sued on in this case must be construed as having been executed
with reference to the laws of the state of Virginia; that is became to all legal intents
and purposes, so far as its validity is concerned, as truly a VA note as if it had been
signed and delivered there
(7) Modern rules used by the courts may have multiple connecting factors: place of
performance, domicile, parties intent, law of validation (apply the law where the
contract is valid b/c the parties' would not have intended to make an invalid K)
iv) Linn v. Employers Reinsurance
(1) PA. Sup. Ct. 1958
(2) Dispute re: insurance commissions that were negotiated and accepted in several
states by insurance brokers
(3) PA: forum; plaintiffs, contract valid, no statute of frauds issue
(4) NY: Defendant's agent, negotiations re: commissions, contract void, statute of
frauds applies
(5) MO: Defendant's home office
(6) NJ: Insurance company/underwriters
(7) Connecting factor: Place of performance v. place of performance
(8) Result: The court holds that the place of acceptance by telephone of an offer takes
place where the words are spoken; the state where the contract was made is the state
from which Ehmann telephoned the defendant's acceptance to Linn. The court also
found that the statute of frauds was a "substance" issue and therefore only applied
to contracts made in PA.
d) Domicile
i) Generally, a place where a person calls home or intends as home with no intention
of making his home elsewhere; can only have one domicile at any point in time
ii) Requires 1) physical presence in a state AND 2) the intent to make such a state a
home
iii) Under the 1st Rest., domicile is determined by the law of the forum; even when
there may be several states in contention with differing ways to determine
domicile
iv) Must have requisite intention to make a certain or new dwelling place his/her
home at the moment; must not be an intention to make a home in the future
v) White v. Tenant
(1) W. VA. Sup. Ct., 1888
(2) Probate case; Sold WVA home and moved to PA, only stayed one night and had to
return to WVA because wife was sick, Husband died intestate, White sued Tenant
who was the administrator of a decedent's estate, to have the estate settled
according to Pennsylvania law and not W. VA law
(3) W. VA: forum; former residence of decedent, husband died here --> wife received
entire estate
(4) PA: new house was built with belongings moved in, stayed only an evening then
returned to W. Va --> estate distributed between wife and siblings
(5) Result: Because the decedent had no intent on returning to W. Va, the law of PA
will govern as it was his domicile at the time of his death. Does not matter how long
he was in the new domicile, key fact is that he had no intention of returning to W.
Va. Mere temporary absence does not destroy the new domicile, no matter how
long the absence.
vi) Rodriguez v. Sierra Martinez
(1) US Dist. Ct, 1st Cir., 1988
(2) Car accident at age 17, and sued for injuries in NY after moving there; Diaz
claimed to be a citizen of NY even though he had been a domicilliary of Puerto
Rico and was still a minor under Puerto Rico law
(3) PR: accident, defendant driver/hospital, parents --> age of majority to bring suits is
21, dismissal proper
(4) NY: forum (federal); plaintiff now lives here --> age of majority is 18
(5) Result: Rodriguez's right of access to a federal court is one uniquely of federal
cognizance. Local interests not paramount, using NY law best fits the aim of the
federal diversity statute.
e) Marriage
i) General rule: a marriage is valid everywhere if the requirements of the marriage
law of the state of celebration are complied with
ii) When a marriage is invalid under the law of the place of celebration, it is invalid
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
everywhere
A marriage will be determined invalid if the law of the domicile has a statute that
makes it void, even if celebrated in another state
If a certain marriage offends public policy of a latter state, then that state may
refuse to give effect to the marriage
In re May's Estate
(1) NY Ct. App., 1953
(2) The appointment of Sam May as administrator for the estate of his late wife was
challenged on the basis that the marriage, legal in the state of its solemnization, was
illegal in NY where they resided
(3) NY: forum; marital domicile, wife dies, 6 children ---> marriage void/illegal
(4) RH: marriage celebrated --> valid marriage
(5) Result: Even though the intent of the couple was to evade NY's law against
incestuous marriage, the court will still deem valid the marriage if it was valid in
the state it was celebrated. The NY statute lacked language that gave it
extraterritorial effect. The case does not fit within the 1st Rest. exceptions for a
forum state to invalidate the marriage.
Lanham v. Lanham
(1) Wisc., 1908
(2) Lanham had married his wife (now deceased) in Michigan less than one year after
her divorce to her previous husband, to evade Wisconsin's prohibition against a
divorcee's remarriage within one year of a divorce.
(3) WI: forum; former marriage, divorce, remarried Mr. Sherman, cohabitation over 6
months --> 1 year waiting period enforced
(4) MI: marriage ceremony --> no waiting period after divorce
(5) Result: The Wisconsin statute has extraterritorial application such that the
remarriage will not be deemed valid. There was an important public policy of
protecting the stability of families by enacting a 1-year waiting period. The plaintiff
cannot be rewarded by trying to evade this government interest.
f) Real Property
i) Most issues will have the connecting factor: the law of the state where the land is
(1) The original creation of property in a tangible thing is governed by the law of the
state where the thing is at the time of the events which create the interests
(2) Formalities necessary for the validity of a conveyance of an interest in land are
determined by the law of the state where the land is
(3) Capacity of grantee - law of the state where the land is
(4) Effect of conveyance of interest - law of the state where the land is
(5) Assignment of Mortgage on land - law of the state where the land is
(6) The validity, construction, force, and effect of instruments affecting the title to land
depend upon the law of the state where the land lies...Burr v. Beckler
ii) Burr v. Beckler
(1) IL Sup. Ct., 1914
(2) Foreclosure action, Beckler pledged certain Illinois real estate as collateral for a
note executed in Florida
(3) IL: forum; property located, parties domiciled ---> capacity, valid contract
(4) FL: note executed and delivered, deed of trust executed by wife and husband-->law
of coveture applies
(5) Result: Place of contracting governs, place of delivery will also govern = Florida,
Beckler not liable for note
(6) The law of the state of performance will govern in determining the rights of the
parties and the effect of the contract, but if a party is not competent to make a
contract, the contract is not valid and will not be enforced anywhere.
iii) Thomson v. Kyle
(1) Fl. Sup. Ct., 1897
(2) Thompson mortgaged her Alabama real estate to secure a debt of her husband, an
act that was valid in Florida but void in Alabama, the state where the transaction
occurred.
(3) FL: forum; property --> mortgage valid
(4) AL: note executed/delivered by husband and wife, parties domiciled, mortgage
executed --> no capacity for the wife to contract, usury issues
(5) Result: An otherwise valid encumbrance upon real estate will not be void on
account of incapacity laws in the mortgagor's domicilliary state. Thomson could
use the separate land in FL to secure husband's debt.
(6) Law of the situs applies to conveyance issue - FL
(7) Law of the place of contracting applies to the usury issue - AL
g) Wrinkles in Theory
i) Allows the courts to get around using the 1st Rest.
ii) Characterization
(1) Contract or tort case? What's the connecting factor to be used? Outcome?
(2) There are no rules set on how to characterize an issue (dictated by the forum state)
(3) Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co.
(a) Wisc., 1959
(b) Spousal immunity case; Mrs. Haumschild was injured due to her husband's negligence
while they were traveling in California. The couple was domiciled in Wisconsin where
suit was brought.
(c) WI: forum; parties (husband and wife) --> no spousal immunity, family/status =
domicile
(d) CA: accident --> spousal immunity enforced, capacity = domicile
(e) Interest analysis - what state has an interest in applying its laws?
(f) Rationale: Court characterizes case as family law issue (issue of capacity due to
marital status) and not one of tort. The law of the place of the wrong will govern as to
substantive tort law, but the law of the domicile will govern as to capacity to sue based
upon a familial relationship. Applies Wisconsin law.
iii) Renvoi
(1) Means "return", court choose between applying the "whole law" - internal law
(substantive law) and choice of law
(2) The 1st Rest. says when the forum COL and the foreign COL rules differ, the court
is to apply just the substantive law of the foreign state to the applicable issue
(3) In re Estate of Damato
(a) NJ Sup. Ct., 1965
(b) In a NJ probate action involving two Florida deposit accounts, it was urged that Florida
conflict-of-law rules be applied.
(c) NJ: forum; decedent --> not valid (internal law), law of the situs (where the account
was created)
(d) FL: deposit accounts, beneficiary = Phillip, horses --> toten trust valid (internal law),
domicile of the creator, testamentary transaction (COL rules)
(e) Result: Court rejected use of renvoi, applied the law of Florida. In an action involving
foreign deposit accounts, the foreign state's law of such accounts, but not its COL rules
should be applied. The forum should apply its own choice of law rules.
(4) University of Chicago v. Dater
(a) Mich. Sup. Ct., 1936
(b) Defendant signed a note in favor of the Univ. of Chicago and mailed it to the lender
while in Michigan. The note used IL real estate as collateral, and fell into default and a
collection action was filed in Michigan.
(c) MI: forum; owners domicile, papers signed and mailed --> law of coverture applies,
promissory note invalid
(d) IL: land, lender, loan payments --> capacity to enter into contracts (internal law)
(e) The COL for both places was "the place of contracting"
(f) Result: The court uses MI law because it was the site of delivery of the contract. When
a contract does not by its terms designate the law to be applied, the law that shall be
applied will be that of where the contract is to be performed. The place of delivery to
the lender or trustee (since it was a promissory note) is where the contract is
"performed."
iv) Substance v. Procedure
(1) All matters that are procedural in nature, the law of the forum applies; can still use
substantive law from another state
(2) The 1st Rest. generally classifies the following as "procedural": jurisdiction, form
of action, service, proper and necessary parties, pleading/joinder/splitting claims,
trial by judge/jury, competence and credibility of witnesses, admissibility of
evidence, proof/presumptions/inferences, execution of judgments, appellate
process
(3) Contributory negligence is not available as a (substantive) defense if it is not
imposed under the law of the place of the wrong
(4) Substantive law related to rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action,
while procedural law is the machinery for carrying on the suit
(5) Sampson v. Channell
(a) US Dist. Ct., 1st Cir., 1940
(b) In a federal diversity action, the law of the forum state required that contributory
negligence be proved by the defendant while the law of the injury site was the opposite.
(c) MA: forum (federal); defendant --> state law: burden of proof on defendant, fed law:
burden of proof on defendant FRCP 8(c) affirmative defense
(d) ME: car accident --> state law says burden of proof is on plaintiff
(e) Result: MA case law shows that burden of proof is a procedural rule and governed by
its state law/courts. Under Erie, if a federal law and state law conflict, the federal court
should apply state law to all substantive issues. However, since MA state law has
classified BOP as procedural and that the law of the forum will govern (COL
provision).
(6) O'Leary v. Ill. Terminal R.R.
(a) Mo., 1987
(b) In a suit arising out of an IL accident, the court applied the local law that contributory
negligence was an affirmative defense rather than Illinois' law that the lack thereof was
an element of a plaintiff's cause of action.
(c) MO: forum; burden of proof on defendant
(d) IL: accident --> burden of proof re: contributory negligence is on the plaintiff
(e) Result: Court determines that BOP is substantive. Law of the situs applies. When the
law of the site of an accident is the plaintiff's due care is an element of the negligence
cause of action, that law should be applied.
(7) Grant v. McAuliffe
(a) Cal. Sup. Ct., 1953
(b) McAuliffe, administrator of alleged tortfeasor/decedent Pullen, contended that the law
of the place of the injury should apply as to the issue of survival of a tort action against
a decedent
(c) CA: forum; parties are all CA residents, estate administered --> can have survival of
action claims, also COL is place of the tort
(d) AZ: accident --> no survival actions
(e) Result: Survival actions characterized as procedural, such that CA law applies. The
survival statutes do not create a new cause of action. A statute or other rule of law will
be characterized as substantive or procedural according to the nature of the problem for
which a characterization must be made. It is a ultimately a question of administration
of a decedent's estate which is a purely local concern.
v) Statutes of Limitation
(1) If action is barred by the SOL of the forum, no action can be maintained though
action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose
(2) If action is not barred by the SOL of the forum, an action can be maintained though
the action would otherwise be barred in the state where the cause of action arose
(foreign SOL)
(3) If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose the action is
barred, it is also barred in this state (Duke)
(4) Duke v. Housen
(a) Wyoming, 1979
(b) In a personal injury action, defendant (duke) contended that the statue of limitations of
the place of injury should apply; Housen had contracted gonorrhea while traveling
with Duke from WY to several different states
(c) WY: forum; defendant resides --> SOL = 4 years, borrowing statute in effect(where the
cause of action arose, gets around using the law of the forum)
(d) DC: Plaintiff diagnosed and treated, plaintiff resides
(e) NY: 2nd and last intercourse event occurred --> SOL = 3 years
(f) Result: If the limitations period is built into the right itself, the issue is then
characterized as substantive. NY law applies as it was the place of the injury "where
defendant committed his second and last acts of negligence." Also, eliminated the
possibility of plaintiff shopping for a favorable forum in which to revive a dead claim.
vi) Public Policy
(1) No action can be maintained upon a cause of action created in another state the
enforcement of which is contrary to the strong public policy of the forum
(2) Marchlik v. Coronet Insurance Co.
(a) IL., 1968
(b) Plaintiff suing in Illinois for an accident occurring in WI, contended that WI law
permitting a direct action against a tortfeasor's insurer is not to be applied in an IL
lawsuit.
(c) IL: forum; insurance company, policies issued --> "no action" enforced (no direct
action against insurer)
(d) WI: plaintiff, drivers (defendants), accident --> direct action against insurer permitted
(e) MI: driver's domicile
(f) Result: IL court views the direct action statute as one that creates liability/new cause of
action against insurer; which is contrary to public policy of the state. First went
through substance v. procedure analysis...determined substantive (place of the wrong
would typically govern WI), but decided public policy trumped this.
(3) Holzer v. Deutsch Reichsbahn
(a) NY Sup. Ct., 1938
(b) The plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and was refused the benefit
he was promised. Defendant raised as defense to a breach of contract action a law
passed by the German government prohibiting the employment of Jews.
(c) NY: forum
(d) Germany: K made, performed and terminated --> defense = justification for
termination, breach was mandated by law
(e) Result: The defense was allowed because the law of the country where the contract was
made (mandated the breach) should be respected by the forum state/court.
vii) Penal Laws
(1) No action can be maintained to recover a penalty the right to which is given by the
law of another state
(2) Paper Products Co. v. Doggrell
(a) TN Sup. Ct, 1953
(b) Breach of contract case
(c) Facts: Plaintiff in a suit filed in TN, contended that the court should apply Arkansas
law respecting shareholder liability for the debts of an Arkansas corporation.
(d) Issue: Will the law of the state of incorporation determine whether individual holders
are liable for the debts of a corporation?
(e) Holding: Yes.
(f) Rationale: Absent incorporators are accountable for debts of the company. In TN, the
law clearly mandates limited liability for shareholders absent manifest prejudice upon
a creditor if such limitation is effected. Here the plaintiff (PP) at no time relied on the
personal credit worthiness of defendant's shareholders, it sought to take advantage of
an error created in the formation of the corporation (this was contrary to TN public
policy)
viii) Proof of Foreign Law
(1) When a forum state cannot ascertain the law of the state whose law should be
applied, it may apply local law; unless it can be shown that the legal system of the
foreign state is so fundamentally different from that of the forum state that it is
unlikely that the two states' laws would be similar on a given issue
2) New Learning
a) Evolution of a Modern Approach
i) The NY Approach - influenced by interest theory
ii) False Conflict - only one state has a real interest (after assessing policy
arguments)
iii) True Conflict - both states have an interest in having their law applied
iv) Unprovided-for cases - both states have NO interest (look to the forum law)
v) Haag v. Barnes
(1) NY Ct. of App, 1961
(2) Child support case
(3) Facts: In defense to a child support action, Barnes invoked a prior agreement to
waive such support, a waiver which was valid under the law of the state where the
agreement was made (Illinois)
(4) NY: forum; Plaintiff and child reside, relationship consumated and pregnancy -->
Agreement unenforceable without court approval, can sue
(5) IL: support agreement made, defendant resides, birth occurred, defendant's
business --> Agreement enforced, no further lawsuits allowed
(6) Result: The IL law will be enforced so long as it is not contrary to NY public policy,
IL has a greater interest in seeing the case resolved there, found by "grouping the
contacts" (formally would consider the expressed intent of the parties, per contract
law under 1st rest.)
vi) Babcock v. Jackson
(1) NY Ct of App., 1963
(2) 1st case to explicitly reject usage of the 1st restatement; forum state's interest is
being gauged by the parties relative contacts with the two states
(3) Compared "contacts" v. "interests"
(4) The guest-host relationship arose in NY
(5) Facts: In a personal injury action arising out of an accident involving NY citizens
and occurring in Canada, a trial court dismissed on the basis of an Ontario guest
statute.
(6) NY: forum; defendant, plaintiff, owner/registration, insured --> no guest statute,
compensation allowed
(7) CAN: accident occurred --> guest statute, if there was a rule that was conduct
related/regulated, then Canada rule would apply
(8) Result: The guest statute of the site of the accident will not be applied in an action
between citizens of the forum state. When the forum state's interest are greater than
those of the state of the accident, this being gauged by the parties' relative contacts
with the the two states, forum law will be applied.
vii) Tooker v. Lopez
(1) NY, 1969
(2) Wrongful death action
(3) Facts: In an action concerning a Michigan accident involving two NY citizens and
a NY registered vehicle, a NY court declines to apply Michigan's guest statute
(4) Issue: In a PI action in which all the parties are forum state citizens, will the guest
statute of the jurisdiction of accident be applied?
(5) Holding: No.
(6) MI: accident, school attended --> guest statute, must show willful misconduct or
gross negligence on part of defendant, protects the driver
(7) NY: forum; insured & registered defendant's car, domiciliaries of plaintiff and
defendant --> no guest statute, NY had concern for both residents and
non-residents for injuries caused by NY residents
(8) Result: NY law applies; a provision of the law of the location of the accident will
not be applied if the forum state has a greater interest in the subject matter of the
suit, and application of the law of the state of the accident offends the forum state's
public policy (it was NY policy to compensate victims of their resident's torts)
viii) Neumeier v. Kuehner
(1) NY Ct. App., 1972
(2) Facts: Kuehner's decedent, a NY resident, drove into Canada to pick up Neumeier's
decedent, a Canada resident, for an auto trip which was to be completed entirely
within Canada, but their care was struck by a Canada train, thus raising the
question of whether Kuehner could plead the Canada guest statute as an
affirmative defense
(3) NY: forum; defendant, insured --> no guest statute, compensate residents (could be
conduct-regulating)
(4) CAN: Plaintiff, accident --> guest statute, protect owners/drivers against
"ungrateful guests"
(5) When neither place has an interest, look to the place of the accident
(6) Result: Canada law applies, for the forum state to apply its own law rather than
that of the place of the injury, the plaintiff must show that the forum state's
connection with the action is sufficient to justify displacing the law of the place of
the injury. Only apply NY law if it is to advance substantive law purposes.
(7) Situations that involve guest statutes in conflicts settings follow these rules:
(a) When the guest-passenger and the host-driver are domiciled in the same state, and the
car is registered there, the law of the state should control and determine the standard of
care which the host owes to his guest (preserves Babcock and Tooker)
(b) Apply the law of defendant's domicile when the defendant acted in his or her home
state and is not liable under its law. Apply the law of the plaintiff's domicile when the
plaintiff is injured in his or her home state and can recover under its law.
(c) In other situations, when the passenger and the driver are domiciled in different states,
the rule is necessarily less categorical. Normally, the applicable rule of decision will be
that of the state where the accident occurred but not if it can be shown that displacing
that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes
without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great
uncertainty for litigants. (applied in Neumeier)
(d) Should apply to all loss-distribution conflicts; charitable immunity is loss-distributing
because its purpose is to shift loss and encourage the growth of charitable activity, also
wrongful death statutes, guest statutes, vicarious liability statutes, and contribution
rules
(e) Conduct-regulating rules include standards of care, rules of the road, workplace safety
standards, and hotel safety standards
ix) Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America
(1) NY, 1985
(2) Facts: A personal injury/wrongful death action arose between NJ domiciliaries for
acts occurring in NY and NJ. Plaintiff's decedent was a boy who was allegedly
abused by boy scout leader, and ultimately committed suicide.
(3) NY: forum; injuries --> no charitable immunity for boy scouts, suit permitted,
policy was to deter negligent conduct
(4) NJ: plaintiff's parents, boys resided here, injuries, death, boy scouts domicile at the
time of abuse --> charitable immunity applies, protect charities
(5) TX: Boy Scouts of America current domicile --> no charitable immunity
(6) OH: Franciscan Bros. domicile --> no charitable immunity
(7) Issue: Absent special circumstances, will the law of the place of the injury be
applied in a suit between co-domiciliaries of another jurisdiction?
(8) Holding: No.
(9) Result: That jurisdiction with the greatest interest will have its law applied. Not all
contacts are of equal importance, and their respective importance depends on the
nature of the case. When standard of conduct is at issue, the law of the place of the
conduct is highly relevant. The court finds that the concept of charitable immunity
is loss-allocating rule as opposed to conduct-regulating. Used rule #1 of Neumeier
to determine that NJ had the greatest interest
(10)
When the case involves allocation of loss, law of the domicile is more
important, the court did not use the public policy exception for foreign law, because
there weren't enough important contacts with the forum state (majority of events
occurred elsewhere)
x) Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp.
(1) NY, 1994
(2) Facts: Padula was injured while performing work on a construction project for
Lilarn.
(3) NY: forum; plaintiff, defendant --> vicarious and strict liability
(4) MA: accident --> ordinary negligence
(5) Issue: Are the labor laws at issue primarily conduct-regulating or loss allocating?
(6) Result: The NY labor law is primarily conduct-regulating, and therefore MA law
should apply. Used interest analysis to assess contacts and purpose of the law to
regulate conduct or allocate loss (more interest in regulating behavior)
(7) Regulating conduct --> place of the tort governs
(8) Loss-allocating --> common domicile
b) Interest Analysis
i) Initial premise: forum law; burden on party seeking to displace
ii) Step 1: Determine through ordinary process of construction/interpretation, the
domestic policies underlying forum law
(1) What was the law meant to accomplish in domestic context?
iii) Step 2: In light of contacts and policies, does forum have an "interest" in having its law
applied?
(1) Will policies be advanced if forum law is applied?
iv) Theoretical foundations
(1) Currie Essay
(a) There should be no conflicts of law!
(b) If we do have conflicts, in theory the law of the forum should always govern
(c) If foreign law is suggested to govern, public policy of the forum state should be first
considered and determine whether there is a legitimate basis to use forum law instead
of the foreign law (in order to advance that government public policy)
(d) Should also consider the other state's policies and see if they have an interest
v) True Conflicts
(1) Where two state have an equal balance of interests in application of their own laws
to an interstate contract dispute, the forum is privileged to apply its own law so as
to advance its own public policy
(2) Lilienthal v. Kaufman
(a) Collection action case, contract dispute
(b) Facts: Kaufman, an OR resident, had been declared a spendthrift under OR law and a
guardian was appointed for his protection. He went to CA where he borrowed money
from the plaintiff to finance a business venture. Kaufman's guardian now defends an
action to collect the loans on the basis that the contracts were invalid because of the
guardianship.
(c) OR: forum; defendant, guardianship, guardian/family --> no obligation to pay due to
disability
(d) CA: notes executed and delivered, plaintiff --> obligation to pay on promissory notes
(e) Result: OR law applies! OR has a public policy in seeing agreement as enforceable
more often than not, but does not override OR legislative public policy; Court
considers economic and social interests of forum versus foreign state
vi) True Conflicts v. Apparent Conflicts
(1) Bernkrant v. Fowler
(a) Facts: Fowler contended that CA's SOF should be applied to an extraterritorial
agreement
(b) CA: forum; defendant, estate, bank account --> SOF = void contract, protect estate of
decedent, enforce contracts
(c) NV: contract, property, plaintiff --> no SOF = oral contract valid
(d) Result: Parties to a local agreement cannot be reasonably expected to take cognizance
of the law of all the other jurisdictions where either the subject matter of the agreement
or the parties thereto might later go. California had no real interest in the dispute. NV
law should apply
vii) Unprovided-for cases
(1) Apply forum law
viii) RULE: The law of common domicile applies to loss-shifting rules. When the
plaintiff and defendant are from the same state, only their home state has an interest in
applying its law to the facts when the purpose of the law is to shift loss and not regulate
conduct.
ix) RULE: Forum law governs conduct in the forum state when the rule is
conduct-regulating, because the policy of regulating conduct is advanced by applying it
regardless of where the parties are domiciled
x) EXAM TIP: Look hard for the state policies behind the laws, discuss the difficulty of
making the proper classification, employ the right jargon, and remember which rules
apply to each classification
c) Comparative Impairment
i) When there is a TRUE conflict, apply the law of the state whose policies would be most
impaired by rejection of its rules; weighing of interests is rejected
ii) California and LA use comparative impairment
iii) Bernhard v. Harrah's Club
(1) Personal injury case, casino located in NV advertised in CA knowing that CA
residents would come to their casino, plaintiffs were the victims of a car accident
that involved persons who had gotten intoxicated at the NV casino
(2) California Supreme Court reversed trial court decision which had originally
applied NV law, found there was a true conflict; ruled that CA's goal of reducing
injuries extended to CA residents injured on CA roads by drunk drivers returning to
CA after having been induced to leave the state by advertisements targeting CA
consumers; there was a regulatory interest on the part of CA
iv) Avoid comparing the importance of state interests directly; only consider the
consequences of not applying the state laws at issue
d) The Better Rule
i) Based on 5 factors: predictability of results (important in contract and property
disputes), maintenance of interstate and international order, simplification of the
judiciary's tasks, advancement of the forum's governmental interests (make sure the
forum has a genuine interest), application of the better rule of law
ii) Milkovich v. Saari
(1) Personal injury suit, concerned a Canada guest statute
(2) False Conflict, Neumeier would point to CA law, Comp Impairment - MN says
guest statutes are based on vague concerns about collusive lawsuits
e) The Second Restatement
i) Uses most significant relationship test, to the parties and to the occurrence; applies to
torts
ii) 22 states adopted the 2nd restatement, federal government also uses it
iii) Choice of law principles, section 6:
(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its
own state on choice of law
(2) (2a) The needs of the interstate and international systems
(3) (2b)The relevant policies of the forum --> important in tort
(4) (2c)The relevant policies of other interested states and the respective interest of
those states in the determination of the particular issue --> important in tort
(5) (2d)The protection of justified expectations
(6) (2e)The basic policies underlying the particular field of law
(7) (2f) Certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(8) (2g) Ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied
iv) Factors to be considered by the courts in making their own choice of law, searching out
the most significant relationship (section 145):
(1) Most significant relationship in tort
(2) Contacts to be taken into account are: the place where the injury occurred, the
place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, AND the
place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered
v) EXAM TIP: 1) separately discuss each issue on which the jurisdictions provide
conflicting laws 2) identify any applicable specific rule (like the place of injury for PI
claims) 3) consider whether another place has the most significant relationship to the
occurrence and parties with respect to the issue 4) identify applicable interests and
policies (section 6) 5) if there a false conflict, apply the law of the only state with an
interest 6) if there is a true conflict, evaluate the relative strengths of the states' interests
in applying their law 7) discuss contacts that relate to those interests and policies
(section 145)
f) Contractual Choice of Law
i) In contract law, issues in K are determined by the law chosen by the parties in
accordance with R187 and R188 (see flowchart as well)
ii) Section 187
(1) the law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and
duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the parties could have
resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue
(2) The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and
duties will be applied, even if the particular issue is one which the parties could
not have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement to that issue unless
either: (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or
transaction, and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice; OR (b)
application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental
policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in
the determination of the particular issue and which under R188, would be the
state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective COL provision by the
parties
iii) Section 188 looks at these contacts in determining what law to apply:
(1) the place of contracting
(2) the place of negotiation
(3) the place of performance
(4) the location of the subject matter of the contract AND
(5) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business
of the parties
iv) Contracts without valid choice of law provisions, follow section 6 analysis and also
188
v) If the chosen law as stated in a K COL provision would make another term in the
contract invalid, then the Court will not apply the chosen law Kipin Industries v.
VanDeilen International
vi) EXAM TIP: Make sure to analyze the chosen law in contract provisions, to be sure the
chosen law would not conflict with other terms (or invalidate them)
g) Wrinkles in New Theories
i) Domicile
(1) Changes of residence after an accident should not be considered relevant; to hold
as relevant would permit forum shopping
(2) After acquired domicile is not relevant in interest analysis
ii) Substance v. Procedure
(1) Substantive (affect the parties' liabilities or behavior): survival of tort claims,
contribution, measure of damages, interest on damages, SOF, parol evidence
rule, evidentiary privilege
(2) Procedural: capacity of parties, competence of witnesses, pleadings and motions,
mode of trial, enforcement of judgments, how litigation is conducted
(3) Interest analysis is likely to find that forum law applies in most situations where
the 2nd Rest. applies forum law
iii) Renvoi
(1) Interest analysis does not adopt renvoi; does not apply the foreign state's conflict
rules to apply yet another state's law
(2) 2nd Rest. avoids renvoi by directing the application of the local law of the state
with the most significant relationship or the local law of the state whose law is
selected by an effective choice of law
iv) Statute of Limitations
(1) Apply the forum's statute of limitations, whether longer or shorter
(2) A shorter foreign statute of limitations in the state of the otherwise applicable law
would bar a claim if the purpose of the foreign statute was to bar the "right and
not merely the remedy" - 2nd Rest.
(3) Interest analysis will apply if there is a true conflict and the purposes served by
the conflicting statutes
v) Public Policy
(1) Can still overrule foreign law if it offends a strong public policy of the forum
3) Constitutional Limitations
a) Due Process
4) If the contact between the forum and the plaintiff, is the nominal move of the plaintiff after the
claim…it will likely be considered an insignificant contact
i) Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
(1) U.S., 1985
(2) Class action suit for interest on royalty payments from natural gas company
(3) Oklahoma - Deft’s principal place of business; Plaintiffs (Anderson)
(4) Kansas - initial forum, Plaintiffs (Shutts)
(5) Delaware - Deft. incorporated
(6) 10 other states had contacts in regards to having leases
(7) .25% leases located in KS
(8) 28,000 other plaintiffs, 3% in KS, 97% out of state
(9) Personal jurisdiction aspect: Can KS issue a judgment that would bind the absent
class members? Does there have to be minimum contacts between the plaintiff class
and the forum state?
(10)
Class actions require a common issue of fact amongst all class members
(11)
There is an issue of whether there would be an unfair surprise of being sued
and subject only to KS law
(12)
Holding: KS law cannot apply to all class members; Given KS lack of
“interest” in claims unrelated to that State, and the substantive conflict with
jurisdictions such as TX, we conclude the application of KS law to every claim is
sufficiently arbitrary and unfair as to exceed constitutional limits”
(13)
Dore - Oklahoma has more regulatory interests since Phillips PPB is
located there
ii) Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman
(1) U.S., 1988
(2) Similar facts to those in Phillips
(3) Issue in this case involved statute of limitations
(4) Issue: Whether SOL can be considered as a procedural matter for purposes of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause
(5) Holding: KS can apply its own SOL
(6) Rationale: A state’s interest in regulating the workload of its courts and
determining when a claim is too stale to be adjudicated certainly suffices to give it
legislative jurisdiction to control the remedies available in its courts by imposing
statutes of limitations.
iii) Legislative jurisdiction: constitutional ability for a state to apply its law to a case
b) Full Faith & Credit
i) State courts are required to grant full faith and credit to federal court judgments
ii) Hughes v. Fetter
(1) U.S., 1951
(2) Initially a wrongful death suit
(3) Wisconsin - forum, administrator/plaintiff, decedent a resident, defendant driver,
insurance carrier
(4) Illinois - where accident occurred
(5) WI supreme court dismissed upon summary judgment saying that they could only
entertain wrongful death suits where the accident occurred in Wisconsin, would
not recognize Illinois statute either
(6) Issue: Can Wisconsin exclude this case?
(7) Holding: No.
(8) Rationale: Cannot dismiss the case just because its foreign, and not recognized as
valid under WI statute. There are other significant contacts that would make WI
forum appropriate place for the case to be heard. WI may well be the only
jurisdiction in which service could be had as an original matter on the ins. co.
defendant
iii) Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co.
(1) U.S., 1953
(2) Wrongful death case
(3) Plaintiff’s decedent was killed on the job in Alabama, Alabama resident; the
product that killed him and its manufacturer were located in Pennsylvania
(4) Alabama’s SOL was 2 years, PA was 1 year
(5) Rationale: Court says that the forum state may apply its own SOL. In contrast to
Hughes v. Fetter, PA is not just excluding foreign cases, but limiting all wrongful
death actions regardless of location of accident.
5) Conflicts of Laws in the Federal System
a) The Erie Doctrine
i) The Erie Doctrine
6) Foundation included the Rules of Decision Act (1789)
7) Construed what the “laws of the several states” meant
(1) PA: plaintiff, accident
(2) NY: forum (federal), defendant railroad incorporated
(3) Erie alleged that it owed no duty to plaintiff and based that argument on PA law;
Tompkins would have to show gross negligence
(4) Federal rules would allow plaintiff to show negligence only
(5) Federal common law rule v. state common law rule
(6) Swift v. Tyson was the longstanding rule; held that federal courts exercising
jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship need not in matters of general
jurisprudence, apply the unwritten law of the State as declared by its highest court;
(fed courts) are free to exercise an independent judgment as to what the common
law of the State is or should be
(7) Result: Overruled Swift v. Tyson; court now viewed the theory as unfair
discrimination; purpose of diversity jurisdiction was to give out of state party
another forum to avoid prejudice in a local forum; the diversity jurisdiction statute
was not meant to give parties a different result by choosing a different forum
(8) Court says that there is no “federal general common law”
(9) Looks closely at the Tenth Amendment, granting state sovereignty; invasion of
state’s rights
ii) After Erie
iii) Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co.
(1) State law: Action commenced and limitations tolled by service upon the defendant
(2) FRCP: A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court
(3) Result: False conflict, FRCP 3 only applies to a procedural issue, says nothing
about SOL; state law will determine when an action is commenced
iv) Hanna v. Plumer
(1) Estate case
(2) Question regarding method of service
(3) MA rule: requires personal service
(4) FRCP: can have substituted service
(5) Result: Court finds direct conflict between the two bodies of law
b) Erie and Choice of Law
i) Twin aims of Erie
8) Discourage forum shopping
9) Not upset the aims of diversity
i) Four potential places from which a conflict of laws may arise: US Constitution, Federal
statute, FRCP or FRCrimP or FRAP, federal decisional rule or custom AND a state law
or rule
ii) Gasperini v. Center of Humanities
(1) State: instructs state trial and appellate courts to review jury verdicts for
excessiveness and order new trials when jury award “deviates materially from
what would be reasonable compensation
(2) Federal: review jury award under “shocks the conscience” standard; abuse of
discretion review of trial court’s denial of motion for new trial; 7th amendment
reexamination clause at issue
10) If the state law conflicts with a federal law or statute, then fed law will win out (if it falls within
the congress’s enumerated powers)
i) Hanna v. Plumer
(1) Mass. Rule: requires personal service upon executor of estate
(2) FRCP: personal or substituted service permitted
(3) Result: Erie did not stand for voiding a federal rule; the test should be whether a
choice of a rule would substantially affect those primary decisions respecting
human conduct which our constitutional system leaves to state regulation
ii) Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.
(1) US, 1941
(2) DE: defendant, forum (federal)
(3) NY: plaintiff (transferor of assets), agreed, negotiated, and signed transfer
paperwork, performance began
(4) New York allowed for an award of pre-judgment interest (6%)
(5) Delaware (not stated what their law is)
(6) Federal choice of law: measure of damages is decided by the place of performance
(7) RULE: A federal court must use the choice of law rules of the state wherein which it
sits
iii) Van Dusen v. Barrack
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
US, 1964
Plane crash in boston harbor, over 150+ cases brought
PA: forum#1, 40+ cases representing decedents, destination
MA: forum 2, crash in boston harbor, flight departed, 100+ cases
PA col: no limit on damages, compensate regardless of degree of culpability
MA col: $2-20,000 based on degree of culpability
Result: Can only use Section 1404(a) for convenience and fairness, motion to
transfer was valid, MA law must use the law that the transferee court would have
used…PA fed court would apply PA state law
iv) Ferens v. John Deere Co.
(1) U.S., 1989
(2) Plaintiff was injured in PA, but missed the 2 year SOL
(3) PA: forum (contract/warranty suit), plaintiff, Deere does business, accident; 2 yr
tort SOL, 6 yr contract SOL
(4) MS: forum (tort suit), Deere registered to do business; 6 yr tort SOL
(5) IL: Deere principal place of business
(6) Issue: Transfer of venue,§1404(a)
b) Erie and Choice of Forum
i) Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
(1) U.S., 1988
(2) Contract dispute
(3) AL: forum(federal), plaintiff; forum selection clauses unenforceable
(4) NY: forum selecton clause (had to bring in Manhattan or So. Dist. Of NY)
(5) NJ: Ricoh principal place of business
(6) Defendant seeks to transfer venue under §1404(a) and §1406(a) (improper venue)
(7) Under federal law, forum selection clauses will be enforceable
(8) Result: In a motion to transfer venue, a federal court sitting in diversity should
apply federal law regarding contractual forum-selection clauses. When a federal
law controls a point at issue, it will prevail over any other state law.
ii) In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans
(1) U.S. Dist. Ct., 5th Cir., 1987
(2) Pan American plane crash, defendants sought to invoke the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, citing the plaintiffs were from Uruguay and that would be the better
forum
(3) Typically, the substantive law (re: forum non conveniens) for the forum state and
federal would be similar; in this case, LA does not allow dismissal based on forum
non conveniens
(4) LA: forum(federal), plane crash
(5) Uruguay: Plaintiffs
(6) Result: Court says that the federal interest overrides the state interest. In the
interest of self-regulation, administrative independence, and self management, the
federal forum non conveniens law should apply. (when the federal court has
diversity jurisdiction)
c) Erie and Judgments
i) Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
(1) U.S., 2001
(2) Review of dismissal of a state breach of contract action due to the res judicata
effect of a federal diversity judgment
(3) Res judicata - the rule of law that a final judgment by a court precludes subsequent
litigation between the parties regarding the same cause of action, FRCP 41
(4) CA: forum 2(federal), forum 1 (state breach of contract); SOL = 2 years
(5) MD: forum 3 (state); SOL = 3 years
(6) MD: would have to decide what binding effect the judgment would have in
California
(7) Issue: What preclusive effect will a federal diversity judgment have in other states?
(8) Result: Maryland would have to use the law that would be applied by state courts in
the state in which the federal diversity court sits. Scalia says FRCP 41 does not
govern, the term “adjudication of the merits” is not so narrow to mean a party is
precluded from bringing their claim elsewhere; would go against the Rules
Enabling Act (such rules shall not abridge a substantive right).
ii) Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate
(1) US, 2010
(2) Medical group is seeking to get benefits and interest due on the policy issued by
Allstate
(3) NY insurance law awards interest if insurers do not pay benefits on time
(4) Issue: Can Shady Grove pursue this claim as a class action suit?
(5) Result: The FRCP for class certification (FRCP 23) and NY’s law do not conflict.
(6) If you have a federal rule and a state rule, must see if they are so interwoven as to
trigger the REA
11) Recognition of Judgments
a) Jurisdictional Requirements
i) Recognition of Judgments: How much effect will we give a judgment in a sister state
ii) Forum 1 = rendering state
iii) Forum 2 = enforcing state
iv) solely a question under the full faith and credit clause, not under the DP clause
v) must look at the law of former adjudication/res judicata
vi) If F1 renders a judgment what preclusive effect will it have in F1 itself?
vii) Bar - refers to the effect of the original judgment in preventing relitigation of the cause
of action that was actually litigated
viii) Merger - refers to the effect of the original judgment in preventing litigation of
matters that are considered so closely related to what was actually litigated that they
should have been litigated all at once
ix) Claim Preclusion (Bar and Merger)
(1) Same claim (could and should have been litigated)
(2) Between same parties
(3) Final judgment
(4) On the merits
(5) Prohibits second suit on a claim or cause of action which was asserted in a prior
suit, which proceeded to a final judgment on the merits
x) Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
(1) Same issue
(2) Actually litigated and determined
(3) Essential to judgment
(4) Parties/mutuality?
(5) Prohibits relitigation of factual issues actually decided in a prior proceeding,
regardless of whether the second proceeding is based upon the same claim or cause
of action
xi) Rush v. City of Maple Heights
(1) Lawsuit 1: Mrs. Rush v. City - property damage, judgment for P $100
(2) Lawsuit 2: Mrs. Rush v. City - personal injury
12) Question of negligence would be at issue in both lawsuits
13) Bring all theories of recovery if part of the same transaction or occurrence (part of the FRCP)
(1) If Mr. Rush were then to bring suit against the city when the city had won a
judgment in a property damage case (against his wife); can the city use issue
preclusion against Mr. Rush?
b) No, because he is not in privity with his wife and was not a party to previous suit; city could not use
collateral estoppels
c) Mr. Rush could use the judgment as offensive collateral estoppels (if allowed in that forum)
14) Jurisdictional Requirements (in what circumstances can the enforcing state reject a judgment set down
in the rendering state)
b)
c)
d)
e)
i) Durfee v. Duke
(1) US, 1963
Petitioners original action was a quiet title action against Duke
There was land situated on the Missouri River between Nebraska and Missouri
Petitioners won the 1st action in Nebraska, Nebraska Sup. Court assumed jurisdiction and
found that the land was situated in Nebraska and owned by Durfee; then Respondents
filed a new cause of action in Missouri to quiet Durfee’s title to the land
Result: There is a general rule that a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit --even as to
questions of jurisdiction-- when then second court’s inquiry disclosed that those questions
have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the
original judgment.
(1) “Full faith and credit thus generally requires every State to give to a judgment at
least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State
which rendered it” ---> Forum 2 must use Forum 1's law of judgments when that
law is more preclusive than its own
ii) When a judgment has become final, it becomes hard to attack subject jurisdiction in a
different forum
iii) Fall v. Eastin
(1) US, 1909
(2) Plaintiff sought to enforce a Washington state judgment giving her title to marital
property in Nebraska
(3) NE: forum 2 wife v. sister, land, marriage, deed to sister
(4) WA: forum 1 husband v. wife, divorce and land, decree, deed to wife, both
residents
(5) MO: forum 2 suit to quiet title
(6) Issue: Must a court respect a judgment of another state purporting to affect title to
land located in the state where the judgment is sought to be enforced?
(7) Holding: No.
(8) Rationale: When there is a judgment in rem, and a court does not have jurisdiction
over the property in issue, there cannot be a decree given
f) Substantive Interests of Enforcing State
15) If a case has been litigated and a judgment rendered in forum 1, that judgment cannot be
collaterally attacked in a different jurisdiction (for lack of SM or personal jurisdiction)
i) *Can a sister state refuse to enforce a judgment based upon their own public policy
considerations? Has the supreme court recognized an exception?
ii) Fauntleroy v. Lum
(1) U.S., 1908
b) An action upon a Missouri judgment brought in a court of Mississippi
c) MS: forum 1, illegal gambling transaction in futures, submitted to arbitration and award is
entered for plaintiff
d) MO: forum 2, defendant subject to personal jurisdiction, judgment based on arbitration
award
e) Plaintiff is looking for a MS court to enforce the Missouri judgment on the initial
arbitration
f) MS court does not want to enforce the judgment because the original transaction was
illegal under MS law
g) Issue: Does the MS court have to give full faith and credit enforcement to the judgment of
another state based on an agreement that violates MS public policy?
h) Holding: Yes.
i) Rationale: The MO judgment was conclusive. A judgment is conclusive as to all the facts,
and it needs no authority to show that it cannot be impeached either in or out of the State by
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
showing that it was based on a mistake of law.
MS cannot rely on the illegality of the original cause of action as grounds to deny recovery
upon a judgment of another state
i) Baker v. GM
(1) U.S., 1998
An injunction had been issued in one state court prohibiting a former employee from
testifying as a witness; Baker subpoenaed Elwell to appear as a witness in a products
liability suit in MO; while Elwell had a wrongful termination suit going on in MI (based on
him being a witness in a prod. Liability suit in GA) and GM counterclaims for breach of
fiduciary duty in MI
Issue: May orders commanding action or inaction be denied enforcement in a sister state
when they purport to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other
state or interfere with litigation over which the ordering state has no authority?
Holding: Yes.
Rationale: Draw a distinction between giving full faith and credit to a state’s laws and a
state’s judgments. The MI injunction cannot determine evidentiary issues in a lawsuit
brought by parties who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the MI court. The full faith
and credit clause mandates recognition only of dispositions that MI has the authority to
order. A MI decree cannot command obedience elsewhere on a matter the MU court lacks
authority to resolve.
o) Enforcing State's Judgement Law
p)
q)
r)
s)
i) Three main issues: SOL, claim preclusion, issue preclusion
ii) There is a federal judgment registration statute 28 USC §1963 … if you have a
judgment in one state, you may register it in any other federal district court and it shall
have the same effect and may be enforced in that new state
iii) Union National Bank v. Lamb
(1) U.S., 1949
Plaintiff had obtained a judgment against Lamb in Colorado in 1927, the judgment was
revived in 1945 and personal service was given in Missouri
Plaintiff then instituted an enforcement action against Lamb in Missouri; Missouri law
says that a judgment must be executed within 10 years
Missouri court refuses to enforce the judgment because the judgment could not have been
revived under MO law, said that lex fori governs statute of limitations and full faith and
credit did not apply
Rationale: Roche v. McDonald controls (in that case the court held that once the court of
the sister state/enforcing state had jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter its
judgment was valid and could not be impeached in the State of the forum, even though it
could not have been obtained there…)
i) Watkins v. Conway
(1) U.S., 1966
t) Initially a tort action that was instituted in Florida
u) GA law prohibits enforcement on foreign judgments if after 5 years from the date of the
original judgment
v) Court finds that the GA law was constitutional and did not draw a distinction between
foreign and state judgment; the statute as applied does not preclude him from reviving his
action in Florida and later coming back to enforce within 5 years in Georgia
(1) *Collateral estoppel has relaxed mutuality requirements, see Durfee v. Duke, pg.
642
ii) Trenies v. Sunshine Mining Co.
(1) U.S., 1939
w) Forum 1 (Washington): P (husband) v. D(Trenies) - plaintiff wins, stock ownership
belongs to Pelkes
x) Forum 2 (Idaho): D(Mason, Child of Pelkes) v. P - Mason argues that she owns the stock,
granted a judgment that she gets half of the stock
y) Forum 3 (Washington): Quiet title action, determine Idaho judgment as invalid for lack of
jurisdiction
z) Issue: May a jurisdictional issue decided in one court proceeding be relitigated in an
interpleader action?
aa) Holding: No.
bb)
Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
16) Issues of foreign judgments will generally be governed by state law
17) Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Act
a) Party seeking enforcement or recognition must have a foreign judgment that is final,
conclusive, and enforceable when rendered
b) Only applies to money judgments (no declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, penal
judgments, taxes, fines, or domestic relations)
c) Pay attention to §3 of the UFMJA; an enforcement given under this act will be given full
faith and credit in any other state
d) There are mandatory grounds to not recognize a judgment §4(a): 1) foreign court does not
have impartial tribunals or procedures (must have due process) 2) foreign court did not
have personal jurisdiction over the defendant 3) foreign court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction
e) There are also discretionary grounds to not recognize a judgment§4(b)
i) Matusevitch v. Ivanovich
(1) 1995
f) Plaintiff sent a response article to an essay written by Telnikoff accusing him of racism;
Telkinoff sued for libel and won in London; sought to enforce the judgment in Maryland
g) Matsuvitch moved to have the judgment rendered unenforceable
h) Result: enforcing the British judgment would be contrary to US public policy (deprives the
plaintiff of his 1st amendment rights by not requiring the libeled party to prove the
statement made was false) The British court also instructed the jury to ignore the context of
plaintiff’s statements
18) Jurisdiction over Persons
a) General and Specific Jurisdiction
i) General Jurisdiction - A suit can be brought about anything; individuals can be sued in the
state of their domicile for all claims; if a defendant is amenable to general jurisdiction in a state,
the state can exercise jurisdiction over her based on any claim, even one that is unrelated to her
contacts within the state (usually exists when the forum connections are numerous and
substantial i.e. corporations like McDonalds)
ii) Specific Jurisdiction - "arising out of", may be available when the defendant has very few
contacts with thte state
iii) Traditional bases of jurisdiction - transient jurisdiction/physical presence, domicile,
consent (by waiver, statute, or contract)
iv) Always look to the state law first to see if it provides for personal jurisdiction over the
defendant
v) For example: California long-arm statute - A court of this state may exercise
jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the
U.S.
vi) Texas long-arm generally uses specific jurisdiction
vii) Any judgment that is rendered without personal jurisdiction is void under the
constitution
viii) There is a scale of the nature and quality of contacts…”substantial, continuous &
systematic” is the highest indicator of personal jurisdiction; also a scale of
claim-relatedness… “arising out of” is the strongest indicator, “related to” is at the
lower end
ix) As the extent and importance of defendant's forum contacts increase, a weaker
connection between the claim and defendant's contacts is permissible; as the extent and
importance of defendant's forum contacts decrease, a stronger connection between the
claim and defendant's contacts is required.
x) Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall
(1) US, 1983
(2) General v. specific jurisdiction
(3) Claim “arising out of” v. claim “relates to”
(4) TX: initial forum, decedents were hired here, sent pilots to train, CEO for Helicol
came to negotiate initial contract, checks paid to Helicol were drawn on Houston
bank, purchases of helicopters and parts
(5) Peru: plane crash, contract for services, forum-selection clause
(6) Columbia: Helicol principal place of business
(7) NY: Bank accounts for Helicol
(8) Nature of the claims against Helicol: negligent operation of the employee
(9) Nature of claims against WSH: negligent supervision
(10)
Nature of claims against Bell: products liability
(11)
Result: Court finds that there were not continuous and systematic general
business contacts to enact general jurisdiction. The CEO visiting texas to negotiate
the contract was too isolated of conduct to extend specific jurisdiction. Unilateral
conduct will also not be enough to establish sufficient contacts (Hanson v.
Denckla).
b) Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability
i) International Shoe
(1) Facts: If unemployment contributions (by a corporation) were delinquent, the State
was charged to issue an order to compel the payments, and that order was to be
served via personal service if it was found within the state, or by mailing the notice
by registered mail to the last known address; A copy of the order and notice were
served on a sale solicitor employed by the company in Washington, and mailed by
registered mail to an address in St. Louis, MO; Int’l Shoe does not have an office
in Washington and makes no contracts of sale there, does not conduct
intrastate commerce by delivery; there were salesman employed there who
were under direct supervision of sales managers in St. Louis, MO; the
salesmen lived in WA, were compensated there as well; the salesmen transmit
orders to St. Louis for acceptance or rejection
(2) RULE OF LAW - The constitutional requirement of due process is fulfilled when
the defendant has minimum contacts with the territory seeking to have jurisdiction;
must be shown that defendant has (1) purposefully availed himself of forum state
benefits, (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contact
with the forum state and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport
with fair play and substantial justice
ii) World-wide VW v. Woodson
(1) Foreseeability of an accident does not satisfy the minimum contacts standard;
there has to be a reasonable anticipation of being taken to court; must also be in
the stream of commerce in the forum state at any time in order to exercise personal
jurisdiction
iii) Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Ct. of CA
(1) U.S., 1987
(2) motorcycle caused accident in California; Asahi was an out of state/country
defendant who did 20% sales in CA
(3) Cannot have a unilateral act of the plaintiff (refer to Hanson v. Denckla), must
have minimum contacts and defendant must have availed himself in doing business
in the forum state, cannot just have an awareness that defendant's products would
reach the stream of commerce in the forum state
(4) Substantial justice and fair play are considerations separate from minimum
contacts; unreasonable to bring the Japanese manufacturer into court in CA
iv) Two part test: 1) the court must measure the defendant's pre-litigation connections with
the state AND 2) then assess the overall fairness or reasonableness of the exercise of
jurisdiction
v) Shaffer v. Heitner - The Due Process Clause does not contemplate that a state may make a
binding judgment against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no
contacts, ties, or relations.”