Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
NY Conflict of Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| False conflict: Two NY residents drive into Ontario, planning to return that evening. While there the passenger is injured in a car accident. NY allows recovery for negligence, ON does not. Which law prevails? | NY. Both parties are residents of NY, and allowing or denying recovery will be felt by the parties in NY. |
| True Conflict: NYer rents car from NJ rental. While driving in Quebec the driver gets in an accident that injures NY passenger. NYP sues rental co in NY, where rental co can be liable for driver. Which state? | Since the rental took place in NJ, NJ interest greater and NJ law applies. |
| Unprovided-for case | interest analysis doesn’t really apply, so apply law of where the accident occurred |
| Center of Gravity Approach, rule and what to look at | In the absence of a valid choice of law clause, NY law applies the center of gravity approach. Look for place of contracting, negotiation, performance, location of subject of K, domiciliaries of parties. |
| English couple separates. H goes to NY and W follows him. There they execute a separation agreement where he sends $ back to GB. She goes back, he stops paying. Using center of gravity, which law applies? | England. They were married in England, he is sending the money to England, She is English and living there. |
| If there is a contract between major corporations, say | NY likes being a major financial center and will benefit by applying its own law. |
| Insurance contracts | governed by the law of the state where issued. |
| Can NY apply its conduct-regulating rules when the harm occurs in another state? | Yes. Ex- NY dram shop act imposes liability on bars for serving to drunks. If drunk is served in NY and kills someone driving in CT, widow can bring suit in NY under dram act. |
| The Neumeier Rules | 1)Parties share dom, apply law of shared dom; 2) Different states, D’s state favors D, P’s state favors D- apply law of place of the tort; and 3) No shared state, apply law of state where accident occurred unless you have a good reason to use another. |
| A NY resident was injured in PA by a car rented in PA from a PA rental co. Vicarious liability under NY but not PA law. D is from PA. What law governs? | Apply Neumeier’s Rule No. 2. True conflict bc P’s state favors P, D’s favor D, so we use a territorial tie-breaker: apply the law of the place of the tort. If car had been driven into NY and accident happened there, NY law would have applied. |
| Neumeier Rules Exception: Wrongful Death? | Where a NY resident is killed in an accident in D’s home state and the law of that state imposes a limitation on recovery for WD, the NY resident can still recover in full and the limitation will not be recognized. |
| Why can a NY resident recover in full from State X for wrongful death? | Because NY has a strong and constitutionally embedded policy against limiting recovery for wrongful death |
| Difference between Conflict-Regulating and Loss-Allocation | CR regulates the behavior before the tort. LA regulates |
| When is a state “interested” in the conduct regulating sense? | When domiciliaries are parties OR the tort occurs within their borders. |
| NY lets parties choose NY law for transactions covering at least $__, even if there is no reasonable relation to NY | $250,000 |
| When will express choice of law be recognized? Why? (Contracts) | 1) When the choice of law is within the parties’ contractual capacity, like construction and interpretation of the K. 2) Bc they could have covered those matters by specific provision in K |
| When might an express choice of law NOT be recognized? | When the choice of law goes beyond the contractual capacity of the parties, such as validity and selection of the forum in which suit can be brought. |
| Two-Part Test: Express Choice of Law will be recognized with respect to matters beyond the contractual capacity of the parties, provided that | 1) Law of chosen state has a REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP to the agreement; and 2) the law chosen DOES NOT VIOLATE A FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF NY. |
| Does this violate Express Choice of Law? NY law firm contracts with an OK company, opt to use OK law, bc it makes valid a clause in the K requiring the law firm to indemnify the OK company against certain claims. (The provision would be invalid in NY). | We allow it because there is a reasonable relation and doesn’t violate fundamental policy of NY |
| Does this violate Express Choice of Law? NY corporation leased computer equipment from a UT corporation for use in NY. The lease contract followed UT law, and stated that the lease would be automatically renewed. | Court held this was not a valid express choice of law clause, because it is a fundamental public policy interest to protect consumers from automatic renewals. |
| In the absence of a valid express choice of law clause, the NY courts follow | center of gravity approach. |
| On what is the center of gravity approach based? | A spectrum of significant contacts in relation to the particular K dispute. Look to place of (contract/negotiations/performance), location of subject of suit, domiciliaries, and NY’s status as a major $ center. |
| In the center of gravity analysis, why does it matter whether NY’s status as a major financial center is implicated? | Parties that are certain they will get NY law in a contract dispute are more likely to contract in NY. Basically, we’re providing peace of mind to attract business. |
| NY brokering firm helps French firm acquire NJ firm. Negs take place in NJ and NY. NY brings action to recover a finders fee based on an alleged oral K in NJ. Can NY use center of gravity approach successfully? | Yes, because of NY’s position as a major financial center for the sale of international businesses we apply NY law. |
| Center of Gravity Analysis: Insurance Contracts | No! Bad. Ins contracts are governed by the law of the state in which the insurance contract was issued. |
| The validity and effect of an inter vivos transfer of land is governed by | the situs of the land. |
| The validity and effect of an inter vivos transfer of movable property is governed by | the situs of the property at the time of transfer |
| The validity and effect of a transfer of movable property by will or bequest is governed by | the situs of the property |
| Disputes over property btwn married persons determined by law of | marital domicile, not situs |
| The validity of a marriage is determined by the law of _____. Exceptions? | The law of the place of celebration. Can be denied if offensive to NY policy. |
| Validity of divorce issued in a foreign country | No constitutional requirement, but NY will allow if both parties appeared in the proceeding. |
| If the state that grants the divorce does NOT have jurisdiction over a spouse, what can/can’t it decide? | Cannot decide property or support issues, but can divest absent spouse of rights that are enjoyed by virtue of being a spouse. |
| When can NY exercise jurisdiction in a child-custody action? | If it’s the child’s home state, meaning the child lives there with a parent or person acting like a parent for 6 consecutive months before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding. |
| Even if NY is not a child’s home state, NY may exercise jurisdiction if: | 1)another S is not child’s HS; 2) court of HS decides NY is more appropriate forum & at least one parent has sig. connection to NY; 3) all other cts w jx under UCCJEA decline to exercise jx in favor or NY; or 4)No other court has jx under UCCJEA criteria |
| NY makes child custody determinations with reference to | the best interests of the child, so there is no choice of law issue. The relevance is WHO decides. |
| Under UCCJEA, once a NY court has made a child custody determination the court has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the determination UNTIL EITHER | 1) Child no longer has sig. relationship w/ NY (nor do other relevant parties; and 2) NY determines relevant parties (all) do not reside in NY. |
| Can NY courts modify a child-custody determination made by State X, the child’s “home state”? | Not unless the other court says so. Might happen if Court X determines it no longer has cont. jurisdiction or that a court of NY would be a more convenient forum; or NY or X court determine parties do not presently reside in X |
| For child-custody purposes NY courts treat a foreign country | as if it were an American state |
| Estates: What determines the law for 1) SUCCESSION TO LAND; 2) MOVABLES; 3) whether a particular interest in land is classified as LAND or PERSONAL PROPERTY? | 1) law of the situs; 2) law of the decedent’s last domicile; 3) law of the situs. |
| A will disposing of personal property situated anywhere or real property situated in New York by a New York resident or non-resident, is valid as to form and admissible to probate in New York if it is: (3.3) | 1) in writing, 2) signed by the T, and 3) executed and attested in accordance with (NY law/law of T’s dom St. at execution of W/T’s dom at time of death) |
| I execute a will in SD, leaving my ring to Allison or her heirs in my will, which is a valid testamentary disposition. Then I move to and die in NY, where the disposition is not valid. Can Allison still get the ring? Why/Why not? | Yes. A bequest of PP that is valid in the state where I was domiciled at the time of the will was executed will not be affected if I move to a state where the bequest would be invalid by law. |
| What state’s interpretation will be used for a testamentary disposition of personal property? | Interpretation of a testamentary disposition of personal property shall be made in accordance with the law of the state where the testator was domiciled at the time the will was executed. |
| I execute a valid will in NY, then move to CA. In CA I revoke a testamentary disposition of personal property in the prior will by crossing it out. Which state’s law will be used to determine if this was a proper revocation | CA. Whether a testamentary disposition of personal property is properly revoked depends on the law of the state where the testator was domiciled at the time the subsequent instrument was executed or the physical act performed. |
| In a case where the forum has decided to displace its own law on all of the substantive issues in the case, will it use its own laws on matters of procedure? | Yes |
| Substance relates to (__) and procedure relates to (__). | 1) your rights and obligations outside of court; 2) your in court litigating behavior |
| Borrowing Statute: Will NY hear my case if my claim is barred by State X’s statute of limitations? | No. Traditionally viewed as procedural, so NY will not hear a suit barred by State X, even if it could be heard by NY. |
| Exception to Borrowing Statute | If P is a NY resident, but we’re using X’s laws, still only have to meet NY statute of limitations. |
| PUBLIC POLICY, CLAIMS: NYer incurred a gambling debt at PR casino. Casino sues NYer in NY. In NY gambling is illegal, and losers can get money back in a civil action. Will NY enforce the claim under PR law? | Yes. Court will ask if enforcement would “violate some fundamental principles of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.” |
| PUBLIC POLICY, DEFENSES: German employer fires Jewish employee in accordance with Nazi law. JP sues GD in NY, where GD does business. Can GD assert defense that the firing was legal under Nazi law? | Yes. It would be fundamentally unfair to deny the company the defense that the firing was legal under German law, so NY recognized the defense. |
| Public Policy in contracts cases operates at two stages | 1) Choice of Law- ~choose State X’s law if NY law would otherwise apply & using X’s law would violate public policy. 2) Center of Gravity- If outcome would be contrary to fundamental policy of NY, that gives NY a greater stake in the matter; apply NY law |
| Public Policy in Contracts: NY and UT companies contract that UT law will govern in a contract for computer leases which automatically renew w/o notification. Is this valid? | No, NY has a fundamental interest in protecting consumers against this. |
| Public Policy in Contracts: NY law prohibits indemnification for punitive damages. NYInc must pay PD in a State X action. NYI’s insurance agreed to pay “all sums” NYI is legally obligated to pay in personal injury actions. Does insurance have to pay? | No. NY was the center of gravity on the issue of the insurance company’s obligation to reimburse the insured for punitive damages |
| Will a state apply foreign penal laws? What are penal laws? | No, a court will not apply criminal laws of a foreign state. Look for damages to be paid to the state. |
| When would damages paid to a state actor NOT be penal? On what is LIABILITY based? Why? | A law is not penal if it provides compensation to an injured party. Liability is based on D’s DEGREE OF FAULT, not amount of P’s loss. “NY courts like to give full recovery to injured NYers” |
| Constitutional Limits on State Court Choice of Law (rule “soundbite”) | The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV impose some minimal limits on the power of state courts to make choice of law decisions. |
| TEST: Constitutional limits on state court choice of law require a state to have | a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that the choice of its law is neither ARBITRARY nor FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. |
| When determining if it is constitutional to allow a state to apply it’s law, ask | is there enough of a connection between the state and this case so application of the law is not completely unpredictable? |
| X lives in WI, works in MN, insured by WI Allstate (which also does business in MN). (X) WI. Widow moves to MN, sues A in MN where she can recover more under state law. Is application of MN law constitutional? What should the court look to? | Yes. Court looks to contacts. X worked in MN, W moved to MN. On their own, may not be enough, but put together it isn’t unpredictable that A would be held to MN law. |
| X lives in NY, has life insurance policy from NY. Lies, which nullifies payment in NY. (X). Widow moves to GA and sues. GA laws require a material breach, not just a lie. Constitutional to apply GA law? | No. Insurance could not have foreseen application of GA law at the time the contract was entered into, and was entitled to rely on NY law. Application of GA law would be fundamentally unfair and so violative of due process. |
| OilCo in OK, leases mineral rights from ppl in 11 states, including KS. 99% have ~connection to KS. Can a class action brought in KS apply KS law? KS statute of limitations? | No, bc most of the leases/plaintiffs had no connection to KS, therefore application of KS law would be arbitrary and so violative of due process. Even though no contact, can still apply KS procedural law, so statute of limitations is fine. |
| If the D is another state, is the analysis different for choice of law purposes? | No, it is not different. |
| In what four situations will federal law preempt (pmt) state law? | 1) EXPRESS PMT, law made by feds; 2) ACTUAL CONFLICT PMT, can’t comply with both st and fed law; 3) IMPLIED CONFLICT PMT, Fed rule that ~say how far law goes; 4) FIELD PMT, broad fed reg, no room for st law. |
| Implied Conflict Preemption: DoT tells car manus to put airbags in 10% of vehicles. State law requires airbags. In personal injury suit, how do you determine which law trumps? | Figure out what the federal standard is designed to achieve. Is it a floor, or does it give manus freedom to experiment? Here the ct says there is a conflict because feds wanted manus to have some wiggle room. State law tort claim is preempted. |
| Certain issues that arise in a state court case must be determined by federal CL, as developed by federal courts. FIVE ISSUES | Fed issued commercial paper; Ks w/ F as party; Libel actions (more to know); CL immunity of military suppliers; admiralty cases |
| State or Federal CL: Dispute btwn private parties involving land leased from federal government | Though normally questions arising under K’s to which fed gov’t is a party fall under FCL, here you may use SCL |
| Federal Officer makes an official statement mistakenly declaring P the prime suspect in a grizzly crime. P brings suit in state court. Does federal CL apply? What are the libel actions governed by FCL? | FCL applies. Federal CL covers libel actions arising from political broadcasts taking place in accordance with federal law and those involving official statements by federal officers. |
| There’s an oil spill off the coast of LA, causing damage to LA’s shores. How will the court decide whether LA state law or Federal CL applies? | The court will ask whether you could predict a particular state’s law would apply. Does it CLEARLY affect this one particular state, or does it potentially affect several states? |
| Erie Doctrine: In cases before the federal courts on the basis of (__), the federal court shall apply WHAT law, as declared by WHOM? Law on matters of procedure? | In cases coming before the fed courts on the basis of DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, the fed court shall apply the SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT SITS, as declared by the HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, and shall apply FEDERAL LAW ON MATTERS OF PROCEDURE |
| Erie Doctrine: some matters that are considered procedural for conflicts purposes are considered substantive for Erie purposes. What should a court ask to differentiate between S and P matters? | Would the fact you get federal law over state law affect your choice of forum, ie, is the “procedural” matter OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE? Examples include SoL, burden of proof, state law barring suit by foreign inc, etc. |
| Erie Doctrine: If there is direct conflict between state law and the applicable federal statute or FRCP, which controls? Examples? | Fed controls. Ex- transfer of venue under FRCP 1404, Manner of service of process under FRCP 4(d)(1), Authority of fed app ct to impose penalties for frivolous appeal under FRCP 38 |
| If you have a question with a case in a federal court but a state law allocates issues to a judge rather than a jury, what informs the analysis? Can the state do this? | the Seventh Amendment informs this analysis, and does not allow the state law to undermine a right to jury. |
| A judgment from F1 is given full recognition in F2 as required by | The Full Faith and Credit Clause. |
| Basic Rule: F2 must recognize a decision by F1 if the decision is | a final, valid judgment on the merits. |
| When would F1’s judgment NOT be considered “Final”? A Judgment on the Merits? | 1)not final if subject to modifications, like custody. 2) Doesn’t involve the issue in dispute. |
| What THREE things would make F1’s judgment INVALID (relates to validity, silly head) | 1) Lack of jx, ONE SHOT at this argument. 2) Lack of sbjM jx or procured by fraud, (ct didn’t have right to hear case). Subject to collateral attack (overturned judgment) in F2 to the extent F1 court would let you. 3) Time limit- F2 has same SoL as F1 |
| A workers’ compensation decree in F-1 will not bar an action for additional workers’ compensation in F-2 unless the F1’s workers’ comp law contains WHAT? | Unmistakable language that is intended to bar subsequent claims for workers’ compensation |
| If two suits are proceeding at the same time, one in F1 and one in F2, what happens? What if this rule isn’t followed? | RACE TO JUDGMENT: Once first jd handed down, other court has to stop. If other doesn’t stop, LAST IN TIME RULE states the prevailing jd is the last in time, even though they broke a rule. |
| NY will regognize a final judgment on the merits issued by the courts of a FOREIGN COUNTRY where: (3) | 1) The foreign court exercised jurisdiction under internationally recognized standards of jx (same as due process standards); 2) Both parties participated in the proceedings, and 3) The proceedings were fundamentally fair. |
| NJ resident is injured at time share owned by NYInc. NJ law caps recovery for negligence at $10k, NY does not limit. How is this an UNPROVIDED-FOR CASE? | NJ's limitation on damages raises an unprovided for case interest bc neither state has a real interest in having it's laws applied. If NJ law applies if disfavors NJ resident. If NY law applies, disfavors NYInc. |
| In tort claim, which is LEAST important: Domiciles of P and D OR Whether NJ's policy in limiting tort judgments would be advanced by NY applying NJ's law | Doms. INTEREST approach to CoL in tort claims looks at: contents of the laws involved, policies each law reflects, and whether the policy would be advanced by applying the state's law. Dom is relevant to gravity analysis which is only applied to K cases |
| A substantive rule of law is one that imposes (__) or provides (__) | A substantive rule of law is one that imposes LIABILITY or provides DEFENSES. |
Created by:
srboyd