Conflict of Laws

# Conflict of Laws — Grounded Study Notes

## Personal Jurisdiction

**Due Process Requirement for Jurisdiction**
The foundation of personal jurisdiction rests on the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment for federal courts, Fourteenth Amendment for states). Any state assertion of jurisdiction must satisfy constitutional minimums. *Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins*, 302 U.S. 671 (1937) (establishing that federal courts apply forum state's substantive law in diversity cases, foundational to jurisdictional analysis).

**International Shoe Standard**
A defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The test is whether the defendant's contacts are such that the forum court's exercise of jurisdiction is justified. This principle applies to both general and specific jurisdiction.

**Transient Presence (Tag Jurisdiction)**
Physical presence within the forum state at the time of service, even if brief and transient, may suffice for personal jurisdiction. This "tag" jurisdiction does not require minimum contacts.

**Purposeful Availment Requirement**
A defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state or purposefully directed activities at the forum state. Random, fortuitous presence or contact is insufficient.

**Calder Effects Test**
For torts, courts apply the effects test: jurisdiction exists over a defendant who intentionally commits a tortious act, knows the tortious act will have a substantial effect in the forum state, and expects the injury to be suffered there. *Calder v. Jones*, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

**Stream of Commerce (Asahi/J. McIntyre Split)**
For products liability claims, jurisdiction may exist if a defendant places a product in the stream of commerce knowing it will reach the forum. However, courts split on whether mere foreseeability of forum presence is sufficient (Asahi strict view) or whether there must be additional conduct directed at the forum (J. McIntyre reasonable view).

**Daimler "At Home" Test for Corporations**
A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is "at home"—ordinarily its state of incorporation or principal place of business. Mere substantial business activities in the forum do not suffice for general jurisdiction absent the corporation being "essentially at home" there. *Daimler AG v. Bauman*, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).

**Zippo Sliding Scale for Internet Defendants**
Courts apply a sliding scale for Internet activity: (1) active websites conducting business with forum residents; (2) interactive sites with some commercial activity; (3) passive sites merely providing information. Jurisdiction is clearest for active, commercial sites and weakest for passive information sites.

## Choice of Law — Torts

**Lex Loci Delicti (First Restatement)**
The law of the place where the tort occurred governs liability and defenses. Under the First Restatement, this was mechanistic and territorial—the tort occurred where the last act necessary to make the defendant liable was completed.

**Babcock v. Jackson / Center-of-Gravity Test**
The center-of-gravity (or most-significant-relationship) test shifts from mechanical territorial rules. Courts look to the state with the most significant relationship to the tort—usually the state where the wrongful act occurred, where the injury was suffered, and where the parties are domiciled or have their principal place of business. *Babcock v. Jackson*, 191 N.E.2d 279 (N.Y. 1963) held that New York law (not Ontario law) applied to a guest passenger suit, as New York had the more significant relationship despite the accident occurring in Ontario.

**Restatement Second §145-146 Most-Significant-Relationship**
Factors include: place where injury occurred; place where conduct occurred; domicile/residence/nationality of parties; place where relationship between parties was centered; and any other pertinent contacts. The court chooses the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties.

**Interest Analysis (Currie Governmental Interest Test)**
Some courts (particularly California) apply interest analysis: identify the conflicting laws; determine each state's governmental interest in having its law apply; and apply the law of the state with the stronger interest. If both states have interests, some courts apply comparative impairment or better-law analysis.

**Comparative Impairment (Baxter / California Approach)**
When both states have significant interests, courts compare which state's policy would be more impaired by non-application of its law. Courts then apply the law of the state whose policy would suffer greater impairment if its law were not applied.

**Better-Law Approach (Leflar)**
Some courts (e.g., Arkansas) adopt the better-law approach, selecting the substantively "better" or "more progressive" law when there is a true conflict.

**Depecage**
Courts may split issues across different states' laws—e.g., applying the law of one state to liability, another state's law to damages.

## Choice of Law — Contracts

**Party Autonomy (Express Choice-of-Law Clauses)**
Parties may expressly choose the law governing their contract, and courts will enforce such clauses unless the choice is unreasonable or violates public policy.

**Limits on Party Autonomy**
Choice-of-law clauses will not be enforced if (1) the chosen law would be unreasonable; (2) the choice violates the public policy of the forum or another state with a materially greater interest; or (3) the clause is part of an unconscionable contract. Mandatory rules of the forum (e.g., usury limits, labor laws) cannot be waived.

**Restatement Second §187-188 Most-Significant-Relationship Test**
Even absent an express choice, if parties have impliedly agreed on applicable law (by reference to a specific jurisdiction's law, choice of forum, or other conduct), courts apply that law. Otherwise, courts apply the law of the state with the most significant relationship, considering: place of contracting; place of negotiation; place of performance; location of subject matter; and domicile of parties.

**Place of Contracting vs. Place of Performance**
Conflicts arise when a contract is made in one state but performed in another. Modern approaches (Restatement Second) do not mechanically apply place-of-contracting law; instead, courts weigh all contacts.

**Implied Choice of Law**
If parties' conduct or the contract's language suggests an implied agreement on applicable law (e.g., a contract drafted by a New York law firm, with performance in New York, and price in USD), courts may infer the choice of New York law.

**Vita Food Products Principle**
A choice of law for an agreed forum is not invalid merely because it is foreign to the transaction or the parties' domiciles, provided the choice is bona fide and not contrary to the public policy of the forum or the state with the most significant relationship.

## Recognition of Judgments (Full Faith and Credit)

**Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV § 1)**
Each state must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This is a constitutional mandate; states cannot refuse to enforce a sister-state judgment on general policy grounds.

**Jurisdictional Attack on Sister-State Judgments**
A judgment from a sister state is entitled to full faith and credit only if the original court had jurisdiction. A defendant may collaterally attack a judgment by showing the issuing state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. However, the attacking party must clearly prove lack of jurisdiction.

**Exceptions to Full Faith and Credit**
Limited exceptions exist: (1) fraud in the proceeding itself (not just fraud as to merits); (2) judgments violating the public policy of the forum state (narrow—rarely applied); (3) lack of jurisdiction.

**Recognition of Foreign-Country Judgments (Comity)**
US courts are not bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause for foreign judgments. Instead, courts apply comity principles: enforce the foreign judgment if the foreign court had jurisdiction (by US standards), the judgment is final, there was no fraud, and enforcement does not violate US public policy.

**Williams v. North Carolina (Domicile and Divorce)**
*Williams v. North Carolina*, 325 U.S. 226 (1945) held that a state divorcing a couple has jurisdiction if at least one spouse was domiciled there. However, domicile (not mere presence or residence) is required. If neither spouse was domiciled in the divorcing state, that state lacked jurisdiction, and a sister state need not recognize the divorce.

**Enforcement of Default Judgments**
Even default judgments are entitled to full faith and credit if the court that entered them had jurisdiction (as shown by proper service or other constitutional basis for jurisdiction).

## Choice of Law — Family Law

**Essential Validity of Marriage (Domicile Rule)**
The validity of a marriage—including capacity, consent, and essential formalities—is generally determined by the law of the state where the marriage is domiciled at the time of the marriage or by the law of the place of celebration, depending on the jurisdiction. Most states now apply the domicile test at the time of marriage.

**Formal Validity (Lex Loci Celebrationis)**
The place of celebration's law determines formal requirements (e.g., witnessed by two people, license obtained). This is nearly universal.

**Capacity (Age, Consent, Prior Marriage)**
Questions of capacity (age to marry, mental capacity, no prior undissolved marriage) are usually governed by each party's domicile law (respecting that state's restrictions on its citizens) or the place of celebration, depending on the conflict rule chosen.

**Same-Sex Marriage Recognition (Post-Obergefell)**
*Obergefell v. Hodges*, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) held that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. All states must now recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in any state or country, and state restrictions on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

**Domicile as Jurisdictional Basis for Divorce**
A state has jurisdiction to grant a divorce if at least one spouse is domiciled in the state. Domicile (not just presence or residence) is the key. The domiciled spouse does not need to be personally served; constructive service suffices if the non-domiciled spouse had fair notice.

## Erie Doctrine and Federal-State Choice of Law

**Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (No General Federal Common Law)**
*Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins*, 302 U.S. 671 (1938) overruled *Swift v. Tyson*, holding that federal courts in diversity cases must apply state substantive law (not federal common law). This applies to contract law, tort law, statutes of limitations, and other substantive rules. Federal courts must look to state law—including state choice-of-law rules—to determine which state's substantive law applies.

**Klaxon Rule (Federal Courts Apply Forum State's Conflict Rules)**
*Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.*, 312 U.S. 674 (1941) held that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state. A federal court in Delaware must apply Delaware's conflict-of-laws rules to decide which state's substantive law governs, even if another state has a stronger connection.

**Substance vs. Procedure Distinction**
Federal courts apply federal procedural law (FRCP) but state substantive law. Tricky questions: Does a statute of limitations bar go to substance or procedure? (Generally substance under Erie.) Does the rule against certain types of evidence go to substance or procedure? (Generally procedure.)

**Hanna v. Plumer (FRCP vs. State Rules)**
*Hanna v. Plumer*, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) held that when a FRCP directly conflicts with a state procedural rule, the FRCP controls if it is a valid exercise of the Rules Enabling Act. For example, FRCP 4 (service) controls over state service rules in federal court, even in diversity cases. However, if a FRCP is not on point, state law applies.

## Choice of Law — Property

**Situs Rule for Immovables (Lex Situs)**
The law of the state where immovable property is located (lex situs) governs the disposition, transfer, and incidents of ownership (e.g., recording, adverse possession, marketability). This is nearly universal.

**Movables — Domicile or Most-Significant-Relationship**
For movables (chattels), the law of the owner's domicile often applies, or the law of the state with the most significant relationship. Some states apply lex situs even to movables.

**Succession and Wills — Domicile of Deceased for Movables**
The domicile of the deceased at death generally governs the disposition of movable property and the validity of the will as to movables. Immovable property is governed by the law of the situs. Formal requirements of a will are often validated by the law of the state where the testator was domiciled at death, the place where the will was executed, or the state where property is situated.

**Renvoi (Doctrine and US Treatment)**
Renvoi is the idea that when a court applies another state's law, it applies that state's whole law, including its choice-of-law rules. Most US courts reject renvoi for substance but may apply it for procedure or formalities.