Conflicts Cases
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horn v. North British Railway Co. (Scottish Court of Sessions 1878) (Cb. 6) | traditional lex loci delicti | many ties to Scotland but injury in England | lex loci delicti for injury; lex fori for remedy (solatium) essentially b/c it's procedural
🗑
|
||||||||
| Milliken v. Pratt (MA SC 1878) (Cb. 14) | capacity | guaranty written in MA (had married woman incapacity statute) but dated in ME (didn't have such a statute) | court chooses internal ME law (lex loci contractus) --> MA statute was on its way out anyway
🗑
|
||||||||
| Barrie's Estate (Iowa SC 1949) (Cb. 20) | situs | IL decedent with property in IA, will left certain IA property to charity but was an IL will (written void) | apply IA law here under "situs" rule (local rule from Livingston v. Jefferson)
🗑
|
||||||||
| White v. Tennant (WV SC 1888) (Cb. 25) | domicile (at time of death) | ambiguous move within property across WV/PA border, White had moved to PA and had no intention of returning although he died in WV | law of state of decedent's domicile at time of death
🗑
|
||||||||
| Estate of Jones (Iowa SC 1921) (Cb. 28) | domicile | all property left in Iowa when takes off for Wales but dies en route | general rule applied: b/c hadn't yet reached Wales, continued to have Iowa domicile (exception (reverter rule) not applied: when party abandons domicile of choice for domicile of origin, regains latter as soon as former abandoned)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. (NY Ct. App. 1918) (Cb. 34) | public policy | Loucks killed in MA, all parties NY residents, MA wrongful death recovery limitation | NY court finds that MA law doesn't outrage public policy of NY :. applies traditional rule (lex loci delicti)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines (NY Ct. App. 1961) (Cb. 129) | public policy | NY citizen killed in airplane crash in MA while flying to Boston | to apply MA rule would be so "completely contrary to [NY] public policy" that they refuse to do it; alternate argument: lex fori normally applies for procedure (including remedies)
🗑
|
||||||||
| In re May's Estate (NY Ct. App. 1953) (Cb. 855) | marriage | uncle and niece got married in RI while residents of NY; NY law declares such marriages incestuous and void | follow traditional rule: legality of marriage determined by law of place of celebration; doesn't rise to level of public policy dismissal
🗑
|
||||||||
| Wilkins v. Zelichowski (NJ SC 1958) (Cb. 858) | marriage | NJ domiciliaries ran away from NJ to IN and got married; NJ law didn't permit marriages of girls under 18 but IN allowed from age 16; wife seeking annulment | NJ only state having any interest; "we know of no considerations of equity or justice or overriding principles of the law which would lead us to deprive her of the relief she seeks"
🗑
|
||||||||
| In re Dalip Singh Bir's Estate (District Court of Appeal , Third District, CA 1948) (Cb. 859) | marriage | legal polygamous marriage from British India while domiciled there, CA doesn't permit such marriages, issue of how to divide estate | CA Civil Code had comity written into it, recognize marriages and divide estate equally between wives
🗑
|
||||||||
| Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetière (7th Cir. 2010) (Distribution) | 44.1 | action by US distributor of coffee maker against French distributor of coffee maker, parties agree that French substantive law governs, question of what French law actually is | French law is easy to figure out from translations and treatises therefore don't need expert testimony (44.1 allows court to hear expert testimony but doesn't require it)
🗑
|
||||||||
| In re Annesley (Chancery Division 1926) (Cb. 41) | renvoi | real property in FRA, 2nd will made in ENG forum but executed in FRA, FRA wouldn't recognize her as a domiciliary | RENVOI THE SHIT OUT OF IT: domicile @ time of death = FRA (ENG conflicts rule), FRA law refers back to non-official domiciliary's nationality, law of nationality (ENG) refers back to law of domicile; FRA court had already done partial renvoi
🗑
|
||||||||
| Schneider's Estate (New York's Surrogate Court, New York County 1950) (Cb. 48) | renvoi | land in Switzerland, decedent had Swiss & US citizenship, NY domicile, issue of proceeds from land sale | PARTIAL RENVOI: apply Swiss law (situs!), Swiss court would apply NY law b/c decedent was dual-national and domiciled elsewhere
🗑
|
||||||||
| University of Chicago v. Dater (Michigan SC 1936) (Cb. 46) | renvoi | married woman executed trust deed of IL land and notes payable in IL then mailed them to trustee there at husband's request, property owned by Mich. Domiciliaries | PARTIAL RENVOI: Mich court looks to IL law (situs), IL law points back to Mich law, apply Mich law (married woman couldn't bind her separate estate)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Richards v. U.S. (SCOTUS 1962) (Renvoi Distribution) | renvoi | FTCA claim under OK wrongful death statute for airplane crash in Missouri, OK forum, acts or omissions would've been in OK not Missouri | CoL rule in fed. statute, FUNKY RENVOI: fed. court looks to WHOLE OK law, OK court would use lex loci delicti and apply Missouri law, (side note: says that would be constitutional to apply eithe rOK or Missouri law after going through interest analysis)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co. (Wisconsin SC 1959) (Cb. 52) | characterization | sued former husband and insurer in WI for accident in CA, CA law doesn't allow wife to sue husband in tort but WI law does | court characterized suit as under family law, not tort law; family law rule means apply CA law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Mertz v. Mertz (NY Ct. App. 1936) (Cb. 58) | characterization | NY resident injured by husband in CT, NY law says husband can't be liable but CT law says he can | characterize immunity issue as jurisdictional, law of forum determines capacity of parties to sue, apply NY law to say wife can't sue husband
🗑
|
||||||||
| Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co. (CT SC 1928) (Cb. 61) | characterization | car rental in CT, accident in MA, CT has statute that makes rental car agency liable whenever driver negligent | characterize as contract instead of tort, apply lex loci contractus (CT law)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Levy v. Steiger (MA Supreme Judicial Court 1919) (Cb. 66) | characterization (substance vs. procedure) | parties from MA, accident in RI, issue of burden of persuasion | court says burden of persuasion is procedural and applies MA law --> Hanna concern with primary human action
🗑
|
||||||||
| Sampson v. Channell (1st Cir. 1940) (Cb. 444) | characterization (substance vs. procedure) | accident in ME, diversity gets them into fed. ct. | splitting the characterization: burden of persuasion b/w MA fed. and MA state is SUBSTANTIVE re: Erie, MA fed. ct. looks to full MA state law, MA state precedent says burden of persuasion is procedural re: conflicts, apply MA state law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Grant v. McAuliffe (CA SC 1953) (Cb. 67) | characterization (substance vs. procedure) | D died before suit brought, under law of place of tort can't bring suit if D already dead | survivability is procedural (purpose of law is key) :. apply forum law
🗑
|
||||||||
| In re Cohn (UK Chancery Division 1944) (Cb. 71) | characterization (substance vs. procedure) | German domiciliaries made German will passing estate to children equally upon death of surviving spouse, husband died first, wife and one of three children killed in London, issue of whether part of estate had passed to deceased child | survivorship determined by lex fori, ENG law doesn't apply to the will and turns to GER, GER law decides case
🗑
|
||||||||
| Harding v. Wealands (House of Lords 2006) (Distribution) | characterization (substance vs. procedure) | English domiciliaries, accident in Australia | regular criteria: difficulty of ascertaining, outcome determinative impact, forum interest; Judge Arlen: state w/strongest policy should be applied unless it's too difficult; would now look to Rome Regulation
🗑
|
||||||||
| Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co. (2d Cir. 1955) (Cb. 75) | statute of limitations | P employed on D's vessel when changed from Hanamanian to Honduran registry, first claim under Panama Labor Code, second claim under USCA | characterize statute of limitations as procedural, no place for R1 exception for when SoLs (find when built into statute to limit a right/serve actual repose purpose, would be particularly difficult to ascertain purpose of foreign SoL anyway)
🗑
|
||||||||
| West v. Theis (Idaho SC 1908) (Cb. 79) | statute of limitations (borrowing vs. tolling statutes) | D executed 4 promissory notes in Kansas, left Kansas after only 2 had matured for Washington, after 6 years moved to Idaho | borrowing statute acts as check on tolling statute on both procedural and substantive levels
🗑
|
||||||||
| Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co. (3d Cir. 1966) (Cb. 81) | statute of limitations | indemnity issue; relationship b/w these parties in PA, truck w/brake assembly sold to FL resident, accident in FL, FL procedural rules prevented joining D here as D in original suit, P brought indemnity suit 3 years after satisfaction of judgment | cause of action arises in FL b/c that's where judgment was paid
🗑
|
||||||||
| Baxter v. Sturm (2d Cir. 1993, CT SC 1994, 2d Cir. 1994) (Cb. 92) | statute of limitations (repose statutes) | P = OR resident, D = DE corporation w/corporate offices in CT, accident in OR, in fed. court on basis of diversity | 2d Cir. uses lex loci delicti (OR) but asks CT SC how it would treat OR repose statute b/c is sitting in diversity (Erie), repose statute is procedural when applied to right known at common law (must then be remedy, not right)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Pearson v. Northeast Airlines (2d Cir. 1962) (Cb. 135) | damage caps | NY decedent/ administratrix, MA airline, plane crash in MA, MA wrongful death damage limits, diversity suit in NY fed. court | characterize damage caps as procedural and apply NY (forum) law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Babcock v. Jackson (NY Ct. App. 1963) (Cb. 145) | host/guest | all components other than accident are NY, accident in Ontario, Ontario statute barring recovery by guest against host driver | mish-mosh of center of gravity, counting the contacts, significant relationship, duty of care; apply NY law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Dym v. Gordon (NY Ct. App. 1965) (Cb. 152) | host/guest | both NY domiciliaries, accident in Colorado, CO law barring guest recovery without host's "willful and wanton disregard" of safety shown | both NY and CO have an interest, apply CO law because it's more closely connected to the case; can't take insurance issues (or public policy) into account
🗑
|
||||||||
| Macey v. Rozbicki (NY Ct. App. 1966) (Cb. 162) | host/guest | NY domiciliaries, accident in ON, ON guest statute | applied Babcock and contact counting, NY law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Farber v. Smolack (NY Ct. App. 1967) (Cb. 165) | host/guest | NY domiciliaries, most other factors NY-related, accident in NC while driving back from FL, NC guest statute | applied Babcock and Macey, NY law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Tooker v. Lopez (NY Ct. App. 1969) (Cb. 173) | host/guest | NY domiciliaries, NY car, MI accident, MI guest statute | classic false conflict!, NY has real interest and MI doesn't; DISSENT: the NY facts are actually the incidental ones here and MI law should be applied
🗑
|
||||||||
| Neumeier v. Kuehner (NY Ct. App. 1972) (Cb. 181) | host/guest | NY host, ON guest, accident in ON, ON guest statute | apply ON law, establish Neumeier rules!
🗑
|
||||||||
| Kell v. Henderson (NY SC 1966) (Cb. 160) | host/guest | ON domiciliaries, accident in NY, ON guest statute | applies NY law b/c Babcock "was not intended to and did not change the established law of the State of New York that a guest has a cause of action for personal injuries against a host in an accident occurring within this State" --> better law???
🗑
|
||||||||
| Chila v. Owens (SDNY 1972) (Cb. 189) | host/guest (Neumeier rules) | NY host, NJ driver, accident in OH, NY and NJ had same rule | applied Neumeier Rule 1, fiction that NY and NJ are same state b/c have same rule
🗑
|
||||||||
| Cipolla v. Shaposka (PA SC 1970) (Cb. 190) | host/guest (Neumeier rules) | DE host, PA guest, accident in DE, DE guest statute | conduct interest analysis and essentially apply Neumeier Rule 2/Cavers principle 2
🗑
|
||||||||
| Foster v. Legget (KY SC 1972) (Cb. 192) | host/guest (Neumeier rules) | OH host, KY guest, accident in OH, OH guest statute | apply forum law unless there's a reason to depart
🗑
|
||||||||
| Milkovich v. Saari (Minnesota SC 1973) (Cb. 194) | host/guest | ON domiciliairies, MN accident, ON guest statute | apply MN law, BETTER LAW, spend some time talking about how ridiculous and confusing the other approaches are
🗑
|
||||||||
| Schultz v. Boy Scouts (NY Ct. App. 1985) (Cb. 205) | extending Neumeier | Ps domicilied in NJ, BSA from NJ, FB from OH, injuries in NY | D-by-D approach; first apply NRs (only apply to loss allocating rules), then interest analysis, throw in public policy for good measure; wind up with ???; "place of the wrong" = "place where the last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred"
🗑
|
||||||||
| Cooney v. Osgood (NY Ct. App. 1993) (Cb. 225) | extending Neumeier | MO P, MO employer, NY D, Missouri statute bars contribution claims w/workers' comp. scheme, NY law would allow contribution | have true conflict (Neumeier Rule 2), Osgood din't really avail itself of MO (idea that's behind Rule 2), use traditional rule as tie-breaker, apply Missouri law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Edwards v. Erie Coach Lines (NY Ct. App. 2011) (Distribution) | extending Neumeier | ON bus driver, ON passengers, PA truck driver, accident in NY, ON damage cap | defendant-by-defendant approach; Neumeier Rule 1 for bus driver (apply ON law), Neumeier Rule 3 for truck driver (apply NY law)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Rosenthal v. Warren (2d Cir. 1973) (Cb. 189) | extending Neumeier (well…) | NY widow brought suit against MA doctor, MA wrongful death damage limits | STRAIGHT UP WRONG: said Neumeier only applicable to (H/G) statutes --> judge later recanted in letter to S; applied NY law on PP grounds following Kilberg
🗑
|
||||||||
| Barkanic v. General Administration (2d Cir. 1991) (Distribution) | extending Neumeier | DC and NH domiciliaries killed in airplane crash in China, Chinese wrongful death damage limits | determines that NY courts would apply Neumeier rules to all loss-allocating rules, NR 2, apply Chinese law; rejects public policy argument b/c there are sufficient ties to NY
🗑
|
||||||||
| Pescatore v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (2d Cir. 1996) (Distribution) | extending Neumeier | P domiciled in OH, D domiciled in NY, OH permits loss of society damages | Scottish law doesn't apply b/c it's a fortuitous crash, apply OH law over NY law b/c OH is "place of the wrong" (per Schultz) (NR 3)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Auten v. Auten (NY Ct. App. 1954) (Cb. 246) | contracts (family) | married in ENG, H moved to NY and married MEX woman, W followed H to NY, separation agreement in NY, W returned to ENG, support suit, NY law says support suit invalidates agreement | court counts contacts (but not manipulated ones) and determines that ENG law should apply b/c it has a greater connection
🗑
|
||||||||
| Haag v. Barnes (NY Ct. App. 1961) (Cb. 249) | contracts (family) | W domiciled in NY, H domiciled in IL, support agreement in IL, choice of IL law in agreement | court counts contacts (but doesn't account for manipulated ones!) and determines that IL law should apply b/c it has greater connection; applying IL law =/= affront to NY public policy
🗑
|
||||||||
| Lilienthal v. Kaufman (Oregon SC 1964) (Cb. 232) | contracts | D domiciled and considered spendthrift in OR, P domiciled in CA, promissory notes executed and delivered in CA, CA law doesn't recognize incapacity of spendthrifts | TRUE CONFLICT (OR interest in protecting spendthrift and family, CA interest in validity of contracts, encouraging loans, discouraging fraud), apply OR law (resembles Currie)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Bernkrant v. Fowler (CA SC 1961) (Cb. 239) | contracts | land purchased in NV, decedent lended $ to P, decedent bank in CA, P domiciled in NV, P performed (paid back decedent) in NV, will made in CA, decedent domiciled in CA at time of death (UNKNOWN domicile @ time of contract) | (result should be same regardless of where decedent domiciled @ time of contract), looks like no conflict (same statute of frauds rule) but FALSE CONFLICT (NV protecting residents' contracts, CA protecting local transactions), apply NV law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Bakalar v. Vavra (2d Cir. 2010) (Distribution) | other non-tort? | P domiciled in MA, Ds domiciled in Czech R. and NY, piece sold by Swiss gallery to NY gallery, P bought piece at NY gallery | interest analysis (NY prevening transactings w/stolen goods, CH promoting art market transactions); approaching better law w/criticism of Swiss law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Siegelman v. Cunard White Star, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1955) (Cb. 259) | party autonomy | contract of carriage (NYC --> Frankfurt), specified 1-year limitations period and ENG law, induced not to bring suit (discrepancy b/w US & ENG law re: whether this waives limitation) | uphold clause (apply ENG law); requirements: 1) bona fide choice of law, 2) relationship to contract; DISSENT: not negotiated, subst. diff. b/w laws, contacts primarily to US
🗑
|
||||||||
| Piscane v. Italia Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazioni (SDNY 1963) (Cb. 271) | party autonomy | P domiciled in FL, D corp. in ITA, ticket specifies 1-year limitation and ITA law, injured b/w ITA and NY | uphold clause (apply ITA law) on Siegelman (bona fide choice of law that has strong relationship to contract)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Southern International Sales v. Potter & Brumfield Div. (SDNY 1976) (Cb. 272) | party autonomy | IN manufacturer, PR dealer, agreement allowed termination for any reason and specified IN law, PR law that dealers can't be terminated w/out cause | uses R2§187; PR law governs validity of contract under "most significant relation" test; court doesn't render contract invalid w/respect to any other provision!
🗑
|
||||||||
| Tzortzis and Sykias v. Monark Line A/B (UK Court of Appeal 1968) (Cb. 279) | party autonomy (in arbitration) | GRE P, SWE D, deposit to SWE bank, SWE currency, performance in SWE, memorandum of agreement standard SCAN form, submitted dispute to ENG arbitration | arbitration in ENG is good enough to select ENG law ("An express choice of a tribunal is an implied choice of the proper law."), emphasis on intention
🗑
|
||||||||
| Cie Tunisienne de Navigation v. Cie d'Armement Maritime (House of Lords 1970) (Cb. 282) | party autonomy (in arbitration) | Tunisian P, FRA D, contracted in FRA, contract specifies ENG arbitration and specifies law of flag of vessel carrying goods (except in some cases) but another clause says more than one vessel can carry | arbitration in ENG doesn't always mean ENG law when there are such obvious points of confusion
🗑
|
||||||||
| Unterweser Reederei G.m.b.H. v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (UK Court of Appeal 1968) (Cb. 290) | party autonomy (choice of court) | contract for towing oil rig from FL to ITA, choice of court for UK, accident in Gulf of Mexico; parallel litigation in FL and UK | ENG has jurisdiction b/c choice of forum is for UK (note: not every country/court could take the case);
🗑
|
||||||||
| The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co. (SCOTUS 1972) (Cb. 294) | party autonomy (choice of court) | contract for towing oil rig from FL to ITA, choice of court for UK, accident in Gulf of Mexico; parallel litigation in FL and UK | RULE: "such clauses are p.f. valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances"; reflects fed. standard b/c maritime; states have v. strong policies against choice of forum clause
🗑
|
||||||||
| Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute (SCOTUS 1991) (Distribution) | party autonomy (choice of court) | FL-based cruise line, CA passengers, accident in international waters, ticket had forum selection clause for FL | judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness, clause passes benefits along to consumers, uphold clause
🗑
|
||||||||
| Carvalho v. Hull, Blyth (Angola) Ltd. (UK Court of Appeal 1979) (Cb. 302) | party autonomy (choice of court) | P domiciled in POR, D registered in ENG, contract clause for forum in Angola (when it was a province of POR) | court asks if parties would still choose Angola given current circumstances; present court is different than court that was chosen; don't uphold clause
🗑
|
||||||||
| Gilbert v. Burnstine (NY Ct. App. 1931) (Cb. 313) | party autonomy (choice of arbitration) | Ds domiciled in NY, contract clause for arbitration in London, contract performance in US, notice and process served in NY, Ds failed to appoint arbitrator | traces strong hostility to arbitration, otherwise ???
🗑
|
||||||||
| Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. (SCOTUS 1974) (Cb. 315) | party autonomy (choice of arbitration) | P GER citizen, DE corp., sale of business w/negotiations all over EUR and US but consummation of deal in CH, dispute over trademarks, contract provision for IL law and ICC arb. In Paris | arbitration clause = specialized forum selection clause (also specifies procedure), clause wouldn't be enforceable if its inclusion in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion; DISSENT: anti-waiver provisions, public law issue, swipes at arb.
🗑
|
||||||||
| Mitsubishi Motor Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (SCOTUS 1985) (Cb. 322) | party autonomy (choice of arbitration) | JAP corp. vs. CH corp. with PR respondent-cross-petitioner, initially private-only claims but counter-claims based on public law | intentions construed generously re: arbitrability; approp. arb. inquiry: 1) whether arb. agreement reached statutory issues, 2) if Y, whether legal constraints external to agreement foreclosed arb.; US courts have opp. to ensure antitrust enf.; FN 19
🗑
|
||||||||
| Wyatt v. Fulrath (NY Ct. App. 1965) (Cb. 338) | decedent estates | SPA domiciliaries with moveable property in NY, husband died before wife, survivorship agreement giving full estate to wife in SPA (or elsewhere outside US); SPA law would give only half of estate to wife, NY law would give full estate to wife | discuss connection of NY to property and NY interest therein; parties have presumptive control over transaction; where planning/reliance is at maximum, choice of law/party autonomy will be honored
🗑
|
||||||||
| Estate of Clark (NY Ct. App. 1968) (Cb. 346) | decedent estates | H died domiciled in VA, property in VA and NY, clause in will designating NY law, will gave some of estate to W and rest to his mother; VA law would give widow right to renounce will and take half of estate | interest analysis leads to application of VA law; distinction from Wyatt is that that involved inter vivos transactions
🗑
|
||||||||
| Maccoun/Watts v. Lanari/Meyer (Court of Appeal, Aix-en-Provence 1964) (Cb. 351) | decedent estates | decedent dom. in FRA @ death, named 2nd wife universal legatee (included immovable property in FRA), left property in EGY to daughter, under FRA law testamentary estates governed by same law as intestacy, confusing facts about hiding assets for wife | ????; awarded recovery to daughter under forced FRA heirship rules
🗑
|
||||||||
| Watts v. Swiss Bank Corporation (NY Ct. App. 1970) (Cb. 354) | decedent estates | decedent dom. in FRA @ death, named 2nd wife universal legatee (included immovable property in FRA), left property in EGY to daughter, under FRA law testamentary estates governed by same law as intestacy, confusing facts about hiding assets for wife | looks to the level of involvement that the parties had in the FRA litigation, make sure that actual issue was litigated; quick PP discussion; have to award value of res judicata to FRA judgment
🗑
|
||||||||
| Estate of Renard (Surrogate of New York County 1981) (Cb. 361) | decedent estates | decedent dom. in FRA @ death; immovable property in FRA, moveable property in NY; 1st will executed in FRA, clause designating NY law and executors; 2nd will executed in FRA, left subst. less to son; son dom. in CA, FRA law would give him half of estate | due process considerations of reasonableness and fundamental fairness; statute permitted decedent to avoid FRA law; under interest analysis NY has greater interest (most of the assets are there)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Rigdon v. Pittsburgh Tank & Tower Co. (La. App. 1996) (Distribution) | statutory choice of law | KY domiciliaries, accident in LA, under KY law exclusive remedy is workers' comp., LA statute governing CoL that requires analysis of domiciliaries | interest analysis --> TRUE CONFLICT, expectations, policies of deterring wrongful conduct and repairing consequences of injuries acts furthered by applying LA law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Home Insurance Co. v. Dick (SCOTUS 1930) (Cb. 382) | limits | MEX policy holder insures MEX tug in MEX waters with MEX insurer, policy assigned to TX domiciliary, policy limited to losses in MEX waters and 1-year limitations period | TX strikes down limitation clauses as unconscionable; interest analysis --> FALSE CONFLICT, apply MEX law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Alaska Packers Assoc. v. Industrial Accident Comm. (SCOTUS 1935) (Cb. 386) | limits | employee hired in CA to work in AK, injury in AK, sues in CA, contract provision to use AK law including workers' comp. scheme (conflicts w/CA's workers' comp. scheme) | concern of fairness in having to return to AK; "Prima facie every state is entitled to enforce in its own courts its own statutes, lawfully enacted." --> don't have to afford FFCC here
🗑
|
||||||||
| Pacific Employwers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm. (SCOTUS 1939) (Cb. 389) | limits | employment relationship in MA, accident in CA, CA benefits more favorable | go through policies that states have; both states have a policy to be furthered so CA doesn't have to apply MA's law (Currie yay!); FFCC doesn't permit one state to legislate for another
🗑
|
||||||||
| Carroll v. Lanza (SCOTUS 1955) (Cb. 400) | limits | hired in MO by subcontractor, injury in AK, collected worker's comp. in MO, brought suit against contractor in AK | MO workers' comp. scheme isn't exclusive remedy, if another state has an interest it can hear additional claim; applies AK law
🗑
|
||||||||
| Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. (SCOTUS 1954) (Cb. 392) | limits | Ps domiciled in LA, IL manufacturer subsidiary of MA corp., injury in LA; insurance policy negotiated and issued in MA, delivered in MA and IL, clause prohibits direct actions cagainst insurance co. after final determination; MA and IL would uphold clause | contacts counting, interest analysis; LA can pply its own law b/c of number of contacts and strength of interest
🗑
|
||||||||
| Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SCOTUS 1964) (Cb. 395) | limits | contract in IL, policy holder @ time was in IL but has worldwide policy, limitations period in contract, insured moved to FL, loss of property in FL, shorter limitations period in IL than FL | contacts counting, fact of policy being ambulatory, FL can apply its law if it wants to
🗑
|
||||||||
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (SCOTUS 1981) (Cb. 402) | limits | decedent domiciled in WI @ death, worked in MN; decedent had insurance coverage on 3 vehicles, insurance issued in WI, insurance company doing business in MN, decedent's wife moved to MN and claimed coverage under all 3 policies | BETTER LAW limited by: for a state's substantive law to be selected, that state must have significant contact or aggregation of contacts creating a state interest that is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair
🗑
|
||||||||
| Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (SCOTUS 1985) (Cb. 421) | limits | class action, small % of owners from KS, lease interests in gas located in TX and OK | concerned w/practicability of figuring out what law applied to ea. P but also res judicata binding absent class members; KS must have sign. Contact or aggregation of contacts to meet Allstate standard
🗑
|
||||||||
| Sun Oil v. Wortman (SCOTUS 1988) (Cb. 422-29) | limits | class action; small % of owners from KS; lease interests in gas located in TX, OK, and LA | characterization: state can apply its procedural rules to class actions in its courts; SoL considered procedural here therefore can be applied regardless of substantive law; applying law of injury (TX, OK, or LA) substantively (?)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Hughs v. Fetter (SCOTUS 1951) (Cb. 367) | obligation to provide forum (limiting the limits) | WI domiciliaries; accident in IL; WI statute created right of action only for deaths caused in WI, cause of action created by IL statute | analyzes the WI policy and determines that it must give way b/c of the larger policy to give a forum and the close contacts of the case to the state; BROAD POINT: obligation under ffcc to hear cases of sister states
🗑
|
||||||||
| Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. (SCOTUS 1953) (Cb. 374) | obligation to provide forum | PA corporation, accident in AL, P sues in PA (@ D's home), PA has shorter SoL than AL | looks for discrimination: none here b/c PA applies its SoL to both in-state and out-of-state accidents; rule that limitations of forum apply is standard conflicts rule
🗑
|
||||||||
| International Shoe Co. v. Washington (SCOTUS 1945) (Cb. 486) | jurisdiction | DE corp.; issue of not having paid taxes in WA |
🗑
|
||||||||
| Helicopteros Nacionales De Columbia, S.A. v. Hall (SCOTUS 1984) (Cb. 559) | jurisdiction | Columbian corp., Peruvian consortium, TX corp. (in joint venture), Peruvian state-owned oil company, TX corp. (selling helicopters and training pilots); accident in Peru; limited contacts b/w Helicopteros and TX | (choice to sue in US probably had much more to do with procedural advantages than choice of law)
🗑
|
||||||||
| McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (SCOTUS 1957) (Cb. 491) | jurisdiction | AZ life insurance company, policy on CA domiciliary, no connection b/w LI co. and CA, sued in CA w/out service in TX | CA has manifest interest in being able to exercise J.; "When claims were small or moderate individual claimts frequently could not afford the cost of bringing an action in a foreign forum - thus in effect making the company judgment proof."
🗑
|
||||||||
| World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (SCOTUS 1980) (Cb. 531) | jurisdiction | NY domiciliaires, NY dealership, accident in OK, Ps sued in OK | minimum contacts = baseline; must have purposeful availment!
🗑
|
||||||||
| Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Inc. (SCOTUS 1984) (Cb. 546) | jurisdiction | NY P claimed defamation, Hustler sold all over US, Where is the injury?, concern over whether application of NH long-arm would be constitutional (DP) | analysis of NH policy, fairness inquiry; can bring suit in any state that meets Shoe requirements
🗑
|
||||||||
| Asahi Metal v. Superior Court (SCOTUS 1987) (Cb. 565) | jurisdiction | Taiwanese tube manufacturer, Japanese tube valve assembly manufacturer, CA citizen (?), accident in CA, application of CA long-arm | adds "reasonableness" to the Shoe requirements
🗑
|
||||||||
| Burnham v. Superior Court (SCOTUS 1990) (Cb. 610) | jurisdiction | H domiciled in NJ, W domiciled in CA, H filed for divorce in NJ but didn't obtain issuance of summons, W filed for divorce in CA and served husband when he visited | look back to traditional bases of jurisdiction: you can always be sued if you're present duh
🗑
|
||||||||
| Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown (SCOTUS 2011) (Distribution) | jurisdiction | NC domiciliaries killed in accident in FRA, TUR tire manufacturer; similar tires sold in NC; suit brought in NC | putting limits on reach of general jurisdiction; (choice to sue in US probably had much more to do with procedural advantages than choice of law)
🗑
|
||||||||
| J. McIntre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (SCOTUS 2011) (Distribution) | jurisdiction | ENG manufacturer, OH distributor, NJ domiciliary, injury in NJ, suit in NJ | personal jurisdiction requires forum-by-forum analysis; D may be subject to jurisdiction of US courts but not any particular state's courts
🗑
|
||||||||
| Shaffer v. Heitner (SCOTUS 1977) (Cb. 580) | jurisdiction | DE corp., individual Ds non-residents of DE, property in DE, jurisdiction would be based on quasi-in-rem | DUE PROCESS CONCERNS: kill quasi-in-rem
🗑
|
||||||||
| Hanson v. Denckla (SCOTUS 1958) (Cb. 498) | jurisdiction | decedent set up trust in DE while PA domiciliary, moved to FL, left equal amounts to 3 daughters; DE would validate trust, greedy sisters sue in FL, good daughter sues in DE; FL gets to judgment first, trustee defaulted there | is trust indispensible party? (Rule 19) and says Y; counting contacts; PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT (vs. unilateral act); FL judgment invalidated and DE can proceed; choice of law question unrelated to jurisdiction question (Black's dissent gets pissy about this)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Swift v. Tyson (SCOTUS 1842) (Cb. 432) | choice of law in federal courts | issues with sale of land that speculators didn't actually own; fed. law would find valid consideration, NY law wouldn't | assumes transcendental law, empowers courts to find federal common law; fed. court in diversity obliged to follow local common law in particularly local matters
🗑
|
||||||||
| Erie R.R. v. Tompkins (SCOTUS 1938) (Cb. 435) | choice of law in federal courts | PA domiciliary, NY corp., injury in PA | no general federal common law you assholes; if matter is substantive, must apply state law of forum
🗑
|
||||||||
| Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. (SCOTUS 1941) (Cb. 449) | choice of law in federal courts | NY P, DE D, D apparently failed to perform their part of the agreement, looks like contract and performance are in NY, forum is DE fed. court | EXTENDS ERIE; fed. courts sitting in diversity must apply CoL rules of states in which they sit
🗑
|
||||||||
| Guaranty Trust v. York (SCOTUS 1945) (Cb. 455) | choice of law in federal courts | trustee, breach of fiduciary duty, issue of state statute of limitations | outcome determination test; SoL = substantive b/c it defines time limit of right
🗑
|
||||||||
| Van Dusen v. Barrack (SCOTUS 1964) (Cb. 457) | choice of law in federal courts (transfer) | some Ps from PA and some from MA (everybody sues at home), D attempts to transfer PA case to MA so that all suits will be in same place, PA Ps didn't have capacity to sue under MA law | transferee forum has to do what transferor forum would've done (INCLUDING COL RULES)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Ferens v. John Deere & Co. (3d Cir. 1987) (Cb. 463) | choice of law in federal courts (transfer) | PA Ps want to sue in PA where accident occurred, P wants to go to place w/longer statute of limitations so goes to MI | in all change of venue cases transferor law trumps
🗑
|
||||||||
| In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois | choice of law in federal courts (transfer) | IL has all this shit transferred from around for pretrial | says they're applying the rules of the different plaintiffs' states (which they should) but they're completely wrong
🗑
|
||||||||
| EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (SCOTUS 1991) (Distribution) | jurisdiction to prescribe | DE corp.,employee (US citizen born in Lebanon and working in Saudi) discharged, alleged that this was result of discrimination | presumption against extraterritoriality; Title VII doesn't regulate employment practices of US firms that employ US citizens abroad
🗑
|
||||||||
| Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California (SCOTUS 1993) (Cb. 960) | jurisdiction to prescribe | suit against various insurers and reinsurers, alleged conspiracy, Ds were four major domestic insurance companies/reinsurers plus several foreign ones | presumption against extraterritoriality may be context-specific, presumption isn't going to be invoked in antitrust area, Souter (maj.) says there's no conflict here (no compulsion)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Morrison v. National Australian Bank (SCOTUS 2010) (Distribution) | jurisdiction to prescribe | shares of AUS company traded on both US and AUS exchanges, investors mostly purchased on their own exchanges, alleged fraud originating with statements made by US subsidiary, US class representative dismissed b/c couldn't show damage to US investors | securities law applies on when there's trade on US exchange (exchange-based rule)
🗑
|
||||||||
| Fauntleroy v. Lum (SCOTUS 1908) (Cb. 639) | FFC standard | MS parties involved in gambling debt in MS, arbitration award in MI, MI won't enforce claims for gambling debts or awards thereon, P sues in MO (D physically present), P gets MO judgment and brings action to enforce in MS | can't really tell what law MO applied, SCOTUS tells MS that it has to enforce the award b/c policy of finality trumps all
🗑
|
||||||||
| Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Carroll (Alabama SC 1892) (Cb. 1) | traditional lex loci delicti | employment relationship entirely in AL, railroad line substantially in AL, injury in MS | MS law applied (rule that employer couldn't be held liable for acts of fellow servant); VESTED RIGHTS (Beale; rights have some metaphysical existence and come into being at a particular time)
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
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
Created by:
hsa257
Popular Law sets