Conflict of Laws Flashcards

Under the traditional First Restatement approach (lex loci delicti), which law governs a tort claim?

Answer: Law of the state where the injury occurred

Under the First Restatement's lex loci delicti rule, tort claims are governed by the law of the place where the injury occurred.

Under the Second Restatement approach adopted by most states, which test governs choice of law in tort cases?

Answer: Most significant relationship test

The Second Restatement uses the 'most significant relationship' test, examining contacts like place of injury, conduct, domicile of the parties, and the center of their relationship.

Under the Second Restatement, a contractual choice-of-law clause will generally NOT be enforced if:

Answer: The chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or transaction and there is no reasonable basis for the choice

Under Restatement (Second) §187, a party autonomy clause is unenforceable if the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or transaction and no reasonable basis exists for the choice, or it violates a fundamental public policy.

Which constitutional provision requires each state to recognize and enforce valid final judgments of other states?

Answer: Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 mandates that each state give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

For conflict of laws purposes, a person's domicile is defined as:

Answer: The state where the person is physically present with the intent to remain indefinitely

Domicile requires both physical presence in a place and the intent to remain there indefinitely (or without a fixed present intent to leave), distinguishing it from mere temporary residence.

Under the interest analysis approach, a 'false conflict' arises when:

Answer: Only one state has a genuine interest in applying its law to the dispute

A false conflict exists when only one state has a genuine policy interest at stake, making the choice straightforward — apply the law of the only interested state.

Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply:

Answer: The substantive law of the state in which the federal court sits, including that state's conflict of laws rules

Under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), federal courts in diversity cases must apply the substantive law of the forum state, including its choice of law rules (per Klaxon Co. v. Stentor).