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
Conflicts Final #1
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Held that a separation agreement regarding relationship centered in England should be governed by English law, even though made in NY | Auten v. Auten (NY 1954) |
| Said that the key is "center of gravity" or "grouping of contacts." Look for what state has "the most significant contacts" | Auten v. Auten (NY 1954) |
| Held that a child-support agreement made in Illinois regarding a relationship largely occurring in NY should be governed by Illinois law because agreement expressly said it would be governed by IL law. In tension with Auten | Haag (NY 1961) |
| What two cases are in tension about an agreement made in one state but largely occurring in another? | Auten and Haag |
| Held that don't apply Canadian guest statute for upstate folks getting into an accident in Ontario when NY was the residence for plaintiff and defendant. "Purely adventitious circumstance" of taking trip to Canada shouldn't impair NY policy | Babcock (NY 1963) |
| Applies a Colorado guest statute for NY docimicilaries in college at Colorado. What case overruled this? | Dym (NY 1965) = Overruled by Tooker (NY 1969) |
| Refused to apply a Michigan guest statute for NY domicilaries in college in Michigan, effectively overruling Dym (1965) | Tooker (NY 1969) |
| Adopts Chief Justice Fuld's concurrence from Tooker in another accident-in-Ontario case, but with a Canadian plaintiff | Neumeier (NY 1972) |
| Held that place of accident governs unless "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." | Neumeier (NY 1972) |
| Held that NJ charitable immunity statute applies for those whose injuries are mostly in NJ. Held that Neumeier applies to all "loss-shifting rules (i.e., those that aren't trying to regulate conduct" | Schultz v. Boy Scouts (NY 1985) |
| NY workplace strict liability statute doesn't apply to Massachussetts injury on property owned by NY Corporation. Statute isn't "primarily conduct-regulating" | Padula (NY 1994) |
| Currie's Proposal | "Interest Analysis" |
| Doesn't weigh interests - instead gives a preference for using the forum law as long as it has "an" interest. Incentivizes forum shopping | Currie's Interest Analysis proposal |
| If only one state has an interest and it's not the forum state, you use that. If there is more than one state with an interest and they're both not the forum state, this theory has a problem | Currie's Interest Analysis proposal |
| How is "interest" defined under Currie's proposal? | Somewhat narrowly - for merely loss-shifting rules, only the states where parties are domciled have an interest |
| William Baxter's proposal | "Comparative Impairment" |
| Does weigh the impairment of the interest relative to the baseline if not used. Does NOT encourage forum shopping | Baxter's Comparative Impairment proposal |
| Under Baxter's Comparative Impairment proposal, there is some indiciation that a state's interests are less impaired by out-of-state events in what case? | McCann (Cal. 2010) |
| Baxter's Comparative Impairment proposal was adopted by California in what case? | Bernhard (Cal. 1976) |
| Robert Leflar's proposal, used by a handful of states | "Better Law" |
| Rejects application of guest statute when plaintiff and defendant aren't from the state with the guest statute, but accident occurs in it | Milder form of "Better Law" |
| Rejects application of guest statute when plaintiff and defendant ARE from the state with the guest statute and accident occurs outside of it | Stronger form of "Better Law" |
| Where are the generic factors found in the Second Restatement? What are they? | Section 6 - (1) needs of interstate and internat. system; (2) needs of forum; (3) policies of other interested states; (4) protection of justified expectations; (5) basic policies in particular field of law; (6) ease in determination/application of law |
| The second restatement says you "usually" use | Forum procedure (governs capacity of parties, evidence, pleading, mode of trial, burdens of proof, etc). |
| The initial version of R2 treats SOL the same as R1, but later recision says | The interest in forum applying its own SOL is just another interest like any other |
| Under the UCC, a contractual choice of law is okay if ? | It "bears a reasonable relation" to the state. If there is no provision, then apply forum law if there is an "appropriate relation" to the state |
| Under the RS, a contractual choice of law is okay if? | If a rule could have been resolved by explicit provision in K, then its also okay to specify a jurisdiction that would apply that rule |
| Case that held that federal courts sitting in diversity use their own assessment of the general law, not the latest pronouncement of the state court on an issue. Overruled on both statutory and constitutional grounds by Erie (1983) | Swift v. Tyson (1842) |
| Is Erie "procedural" the same thing as Choice of Law "procedural" | No |
| What is an example of something that is Erie substantive but choice of law procedural | Statute of Limitations (deemed Erie substantive in Guaranty Trust (1945)) |
| What two cases disavowed the loose language in Guaranty Trust about any rules that change the outcome being substantive? | Hanna (1965) and Byrd (1958) |
| ? notes that no part of the FRCP have ever been invalidated under Erie | Hanna |
| Says use the Choice of Law rule of the state in which federal court sits | Klaxon (1941) |
| What case holds that you still apply the choice of law rules of a state even if no interest is found under the modern approach? | Day & Zimmerman (1975) |
| The federal government sometimes gets special rules under ? | Clearfield Trust (1943) |
| What case is an example of the federal common law borrowing state law because there isnt the need for a different federal rule | Kamen (1991) |
| "An act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains." | Charming Betsy (1805) |
| ? says that the word "arising" in the Federal Tort Claims Act means the injury | Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) |
| Has complicated provisions requiring that if foreign sovereigns cause damages with different sorts of connections to the US, then they "shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." | Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) |
| Case argued in 2022 that resolved longstanding circuit split on whether FSIA courts should use an Erie/Klaxon style rule of the state in which it sits rather than adopt a special federal conflicts rule based on the consensus of states | Cassirer |
| Held that there was no extraterritoriality if not "clearly expressed" | EEOC v. Aramco (1991) |
| Held that you construe ambiguous statutes not to interfere with other nations' sovereign interests, which means no application of antitrust law when foreign impact is independent of impact in US | F. Hoffman-LaRoche (2004) |
| Held that patent laws construed not to extend to copying code onto computers outside America | Microsoft v. AT&T (2007) |
| Held that there is no problem with applying American antitrust law to conduct in England, since complying with both American and British law was possible | Hartford Fire Insurance (1993) |
| Held that admiralty is federal law, but when it adopts a state law, it uses R2 style most-significant-relationship approach to decide which state | Yamaha Motor Corp (1996) |
Created by:
mmwalte1