Black Letter Outline on Conflict of Laws
Author:
Hay, Peter
Edition:
8th
Copyright Date:
2019
30 chapters
have results for conflicts of laws
Chapter VIII Approaches to Choice of Law: Theory161 158 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When the laws of two states conflict, there be a true conflict. Currie stresses the “may”: before calling it a true conflict, he would ask whether a interpretation of the law of one of the states would avoid the conflict.
- Currie’s distinction between “false” and “true” conflicts is
- Assume that Carroll had sued Alabama Great Southern Railroad in state Y and not in state X. The laws conflict. Although it is now the forum, state Y really has no greater interest than in the case of the false conflict discussed above. True, its policy is to shield employers, but does that policy extend to out-of-state employers who are not so immunized in their home state? This (“restrained”) view of Y law shows that no real conflict exists; X law should apply.
- is not an issue if forum law is selected for application. But note that the other state’s conflicts rules will say something about its “interest,” especially if they point
- courts utilizing his approach have looked primarily to the “better rule of law” consideration.
- Open Chapter
Appendix C Glossary289 99 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When the choice-of-law rules of the forum refer to the “whole” law of another state, and not only to its “internal” law, such a reference would then also include the choice-of-law rules of the other state. These could refer the forum court back to its own law or to the law of a third state. The forum court must decide whether to “accept” or to “reject” these references (“renvoi”) contained in the other state’s conflicts law. American courts ordinarily do not consider the conflicts law of another state. However, the Uniform Commercial Code contains several references to the “whole” law of the state to which reference is made, and the Restatement (Second) advocates a limited use of renvoi. If the conflicts law of another state should refer back to the forum state, this circumstance may aid the forum court in determining whether a “false conflict” exists (see that entry).
- False Conflict
- True Conflicts
- Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws
- “Pure” interest analysis, as advocated by Currie, resolves “true conflicts” in favor of the law of the forum because courts are not free to weigh interests but must advance the legislative policies of the forum. (For “false conflicts” see the respective entry.) If the interests of the forum are not involved—if it is a “disinterested third state”—it should apply the law of that interested state which most closely resembles its own. Modified approaches to interest analysis will permit the forum court to weigh interests. An example is the “comparative impairment” approach; see the respective entry.
- Open Chapter
Capsule Summary1 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Interest analysis and all other policy-focused approaches first ask whether the case really presents a (true) conflict or whether it is a “false conflict.” A conflict is “false” when the potentially applicable laws do not differ or when one law—by its own terms or policies—is not intended to apply to the situation. When a false conflict has been identified, the inapplicable law drops out, thus resolving the choice-of-law problem. In the event of a “true conflict,” pure interest analysis (based on the writings of ) calls for the application of forum law on the ground that courts may not weigh conflicting state policies, but must effectuate the policies of their own state. A modification of the pure interest analysis approach is the “comparative impairment” approach. It weigh and will apply the law of that jurisdiction whose policies would be more impaired if its law were not applied.
- Occasionally, a court will be directed by statute to apply the “whole law” of another jurisdiction, meaning that state’s substantive law and its conflicts rules. In the absence of such a statutory directive, the question arises whether a court should consider the other state’s conflicts law, either in circumstances where the other state’s law would refer back to the forum (remission) or when it would refer to yet another state (transmission). As a general rule, American courts do not engage in renvoi (do not follow the other state’s conflicts rule). The Restatement (Second) advocates limited use of renvoi. The fact that the other state’s law refers back to the forum may also indicate the existence of a “false conflict” (below Ch. 8, at III).
- Conflicts law deals with cases in which the parties or the event (or transaction) or both are connected with a “foreign” jurisdiction (sister-state or foreign country). The principal areas of inquiry concern over the out-of-state party, the
- Conflicts law is mainly state law, subject only to constitutional limitations. Isolated federal statutes and federal treaties provide special conflicts rules for a few subject matters as well as for some international situations.
- “Habitual residence” is used increasingly in international treaty practice and in more modern foreign codifications of conflicts law. This connecting factor emphasizes the surrounding residence of a substantial duration and does not focus on intent, as does the concept of domicile.
- Open Chapter
Chapter I Overview and General Background23 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Conflict of Laws (“Conflicts”—but “Conflicts of Law”) deals with all of the above elements of an interstate or international case.
- You are used to analyzing facts to identify issues. When you have the issue, you then apply a rule of law to resolve it. Things are more complex in conflicts cases. When we have found the issue in a conflicts case—e.g., “did the defendant’s conduct create liability?”—we must choose between or among two or more legal systems (the laws of sister states or of foreign nations) to furnish the substantive rule of law for the resolution of our issue. In other words, there is an additional step between issue identification and application of a rule of law: it is deciding rule of law to apply.
- territorial nature of all law.
- Early conflicts law (in the Italian city-states of the 12th and 13th centuries) distinguished between statutes. The former were territorial in nature, for instance rules of law dealing with land. Personal rules of law followed the person wherever he or she went, and in that way claimed universal application. An example of such a rule is a person’s capacity to contract.
- Conflicts law thus has an ordering function:
- Open Chapter
Chapter VII Pervasive Problems149 103 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Assume that the conflicts law of A refers to B, and that B’s conflicts law refers to A. This is the problem. If both jurisdictions include the other’s conflicts law in their reference, a never ending circle, a ping-pong game, ensues. For that reason, the majority view in the United States is to i.e., not to consider the other state’s conflicts law at all, but only its internal (substantive) law.
- Except in cases where everyone’s conflicts law is the same (as in the UCC examples discussed above), use of the other jurisdiction’s conflicts law will have one of the following results.
- Renvoi means the consideration of the conflicts (choice-of-law) rules along with the rules of substantive law of the state to which the choice-of-law rules of the forum refer the forum court.
- Remission may be useful in case 2 to demonstrate to the forum that the other state has no interest (as demonstrated by its conflicts rule) in having its substantive law applied. The forum may then treat the case as presenting a false conflict and apply forum law. At this point, the result is the same as in case 3. For “false conflicts,” see
- Uniformity of result may sometimes be achieved in cases of transmission. Assume that A refers to B, and B refers to C, and C refers to itself. Here, use of the conflicts law of all the states involved will lead to a uniform result: the ultimate application of the law of C, regardless of where suit was brought.
- Open Chapter
Chapter IX Choice of Law by Subject Matter185 185 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As in other areas, a court employing a modern choice-of-law approach will ordinarily inquire whether a true or a false conflict exists. If the case presents a false conflict, no choice need be made: only one law, by definition, claims applicability. This will often be the law of the forum, but could also be the law of the other state. Note that except for the limitation imposed by local public policy, the false conflicts analysis will be influenced by the basic policy of honoring party expectations.
- law of the state whose law applies (no longer picking up that state’s conflicts law).
- Court found a false conflict because it took a
- The “revolution” in choice-of-law approaches had its principal origin in tort conflicts cases, and secondarily in contract cases. Tort cases were an early area of concern because the traditional (First Restatement) rules were thought to be too
- At times, the reference to the place of making, or alternatively, to the place of intended performance still will not validate the contract. Conversely, there may be policy reasons why the forum would wish to apply a validating law to which its conflicts rule refers.
- Open Chapter
Appendix B Sample Examination Questions265 142 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Jimmy’s amended complaint included a new claim under federal law. The wording of the MPDA is somewhat ambiguous but seems to mandate that a federal court apply (to all MPDA claims) the statute of limitation of the state whose substantive law would generally apply to the claim. What substantive law does apply? doctrine extends to conflicts law. In , above at pp. 155, 239, a federal statutory reference to state law was held to include that state’s conflicts law. Here, it is State Y, in which the federal court sits, that determines via its conflicts law what substantive law applies to Jimmy’s claim. Its conflicts rule designates the law of the state of injury—State X. A claim to which the law of State X applies is time-barred. Dismissal of the MPDA claim as being time-barred was appropriate.
- Federal courts must also apply the conflicts laws of the state in which they sit. See . The facts indicate that Y’s conflicts law would lead to the law of the place of injury—State X. However, they also state that Y law considers limitations to be procedural. It would therefore apply its own time limitations to Jimmy’s claim. The federal court was correct in doing likewise; the Y limitation did not bar the claim.
- Assuming that both New York and California raise liability for negligent driving and would consider driving in excess of 100 miles per hour to be beyond due care, the case then presents a
- In England, choice of law in tort is now governed by European Community law (the “Rome II” Regulation), but only for torts occurring after its effective date of January 11, 2009. For prior torts, English law applies. For present purposes, the distinction makes little difference because both sets of rules look to the place of the tort—presumably Indiana, where the injury occurred. Prior English decisions also considered the applicable law’s conflicts law ( ). Looking to Indiana law, the English court would find that Indiana would apply its own law ( ) and therefore would do likewise. Under new EC law, there is no reference to foreign conflicts law; Indiana law would apply directly. Finally, both English and EC law also permit a departure from the otherwise applicable law if the case is “manifestly” (EC law) more closely connected to another state. It is questionable whether, in the absence of American-type interest analysis, an English court would depart from the place-of-tort rule...
- Traditionally, statutes of limitations serve the same court-closing purpose as two-dismissal rules unless they are “built in,” that is, unless they are part of the statute creating the claim in the first place. European conflicts law (generally), the Uniform Act, and in exceedingly limited form, the revision of Restatement (Second) § 142 make limitations “substantive” for conflicts purposes. The limitation follows (it is taken from) the law applicable to the claim. In the present case, all this reduces to the following: under traditional notions, limitations are procedural, and California law applies as the lex fori. The same is so under the revised Restatement (Second). The approach that treats limitations as just another conflicts issue, to be analyzed as such, will more often than not (but not always!) also apply the liability-creating law to the limitation. Again, it will be Ruritanian law, see (B) below.
- Open Chapter
Appendix A Answers to Review Questions251 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Technically, the subject of conflict of laws encompasses everything under (b), but “conflicts” is also used as shorthand for “choice of law.”
- As to the individual defendant, there is a “false conflict” (A and C law are the same), and C law therefore applies. As to X, there is a true conflict (liability vs. limited liability); the courts of C may not weigh the competing interests but must apply forum law.
- Under the Restatement (Second), A is the state of the most-significant-relationship to the issues of liability and amount of damages (§ 145: place of conduct, common domicile, place of the parties’ relationship; see also the general principles of § 6). A’s law would also apply under pure interest analysis (forum law, either because there is no interest in another state—false conflict—or because forum law prevails in a true conflict) or under the “comparative impairment” approach. The law of A, as that of the parties’ common domicile, would apply under New York’s rules, and A would probably consider its unlimited-damage approach (favoring compensation of injured persons) to represent the “better rule of law.”
- (a) & (b) Federal law generally does provide conflicts rules. With respect to jurisdiction, federal law sets limits to state court assertion of jurisdiction. With respect to choice of law, it also sets limits and rarely provides which law applies.
- See Chapter Seven. When the foreign conflicts rule refers back to the forum ( ), the forum—if it follows policy analysis—could conclude that the other state has “no interest” in the application of its law, leaving the forum as the only “interested” state and therefore fully justified in applying its own law.
- Open Chapter
Perspective19 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A text of this size cannot deal with all aspects of the conflict of laws, nor even treat comprehensively, and with attention to all nuances, all the subjects it does address. The cases cited may help you further. You will find more detailed and comprehensive textual treatment in
- Because of the review of jurisdiction and procedural law, and because the choice-of-law segment of the course cuts across so many fields of substantive law, you may find that Conflict of Laws is a very good capstone course.
- You will have studied jurisdiction in Civil Procedure. Its review for the conflicts course is essential because, in appropriate cases, courts may choose and apply their own law. In those cases, for practical purposes, the choice of the court amounts to a choice of law. For this reason, conflicts courses often review jurisdiction. The doctrine and issues raised by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures are also treated in Civil Procedure and in Federal Courts but are important to review in Conflicts.
- All conflicts courses will touch on jurisdiction, choice of law, and the enforcement of judgments, although the sequence (and relative emphasis) will vary from casebook to casebook and from one instructor to another. Additionally, the course will usually address how conflicts cases are handled in federal court (the
- Conflict of Laws (also
- Open Chapter
Chapter XII Federal Common Law as the Rule of Decision241 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For purposes of the federal/state law problems in conflicts, a remaining important topic is the scope and effect of
- In a number of areas (International Sales, Child Abduction, Intercountry Adoption), the United States now maintains treaties with other nations. Additional treaties are under consideration or pending (for instance, on choice of court agreements). With respect to international cases to which they apply, these treaties will supersede the rules of state conflicts law.
- As a matter of
- Federal law consists of the Constitution, federal statutes, federal treaties concluded with other nations, and federal decisional law. The first three are expressly mentioned in the Constitution as being the
- , took a less categorical view of preemption based on the federal foreign relations power. Nevertheless, state law was preempted because the federal government had demonstrated that the state law conflicted with an express federal policy. But see
- Open Chapter
Chapter II Domicile and Habitual Residence29 67 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The concept of domicile is pervasive in American conflicts law. It is one of the bases upon which a state may exercise over a person. Domicile may also furnish the connecting factor for the selection of the law that should be applied to a particular issue or case (
- The Significance of the Domicile Concept in the Conflict of Laws
- The Significance of the Domicile Concept in the Conflict of Laws
- Domicile is a basis both for the assertion of personal jurisdiction for the choice of the applicable law for several conflicts cases.
- Internationally, “habitual residence” is used in the national conflicts law of many countries, as well as in international conventions. This concept is discussed below at Section F.
- Open Chapter
Chapter III Jurisdiction to Adjudicate43 228 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In the conflict of laws, the question of whether a court has “jurisdiction” is important because the court is being asked to decide a case involving foreign parties or facts or both. The jurisdictional inquiry seeks to determine whether the court has been
- A party may always consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of a court, and may give such consent in advance of litigation by means of a contractual choice-of-court clause. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 32, 43 (1971). For limits of such clauses, and for the effect of such clauses on the exercise of jurisdiction by courts
- Rule 23 conflicts with state law, the Rule prevails. In , New York law imposed penalties for nonpayment of statutory interest on overdue payments of medical benefits, but barred class actions seeking to recover penalties. The Supreme Court held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 provided a remedy for the enforcement of substantive rights, that it was (i.e., that it did not impinge on New York substantive law), and that it thus prevailed for actions in federal court. Similarly, for Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (summary judgment), see
- jurisdiction. The chapters of this book that deal with
- “Habitual residence” is the standard reference in modern conflicts treaties, especially those elaborated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (the United States is a member). For decisions applying the concept in the context of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, see
- Open Chapter
Conflict of Laws 1 result
Title Page 3 results
Table of Contents 93 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter IV Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Decrees85 157 results (showing 5 best matches)
- ) extends to conflicts law, thus requiring federal courts sitting in diversity to apply the conflicts law of the state in which they sit ( no longer binds either state or federal courts. As a result, most state courts have declined to follow the reciprocity requirement of
- Can preclusive effect be gained by having a foreign-country judgment recognized under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act in state A, and then seeking registration of the state A judgment of recognition in state B, under the (interstate) Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act ( . This result is arguably wrong: a foreign-country judgment recognized by one of the states, either at common law or under the uniform law, is then a judgment of that state, and as such, entitled to full faith and credit in all other states. For expansive discussion of the conflicting case law, see (recognizing the sister state’s domestication of the foreign-country judgment). For the like result in Canada, see
- penal laws
- The area of
- Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (1962) was adopted by 32 states. It provides for the recognition and enforcement “in the same manner as the judgment of the sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit” of foreign-country judgments that grant or deny the recovery of money. Prerequisites include that the foreign court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction, that the judgment would not conflict with another judgment, that it was not obtained by fraud, and that it does not violate the public policy of the recognizing forum. With respect to defenses, see also § B. As of 2018, a 2005 revision (the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act) is in force in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia. The revision provides some clarification of the grounds for non-recognition as well as additional procedural rules.
- Open Chapter
Chapter V The Creation of Status and Its Consequences115 77 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Separate debts are those incurred before marriage or in the management of separate property thereafter. Again, there can be conflicts between common law and community property states.
- State statutes forbid marriages between persons of certain degrees of family relationship (degrees of —uncle/niece, cousins, etc.). Such marriages are incestuous and therefore void. Again, assume a conflict between the domiciliary state’s law (with narrowly defined degrees of consanguinity) and the state where the marriage was contracted (with a wider definition).
- Hawaii was the first state to appear willing to recognize formalized same-sex relationships, followed by Vermont, the first state to introduce the concept of a “civil union,” and by Massachusetts, the first state to permit same-sex marriage. Most states did not permit it in the first decade of this century. Federal legislation—in the form of an implementing statute under the Full Faith and Credit Clause ( “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA)—permitted states in its § 2 to refuse recognition to same-sex marriages concluded in sister states; it was a implementation of the constitutional provision. The Act’s § 1 defined marriage as the union between man and woman for federal law purposes (for instance, who qualifies as a surviving “spouse” for social security benefits purposes). In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down § 1, but did not address the constitutionality of § 2. . By this time, additional states permitted (and recognized out-of-state) same-sex marriages. Conflict-of-laws...
- “Covenant marriages” (Chapter Three, Section II, above) raise no special problems with regard to recognition and, it has been argued, with regard to dissolution: forum law applies. See above at Section I;
- Note that most rules summarized in this Part (Domestic Relations) are rules of
- Open Chapter
Chapter XI State Law in Federal Court229 78 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Rules of Decision Act provides: “The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” , the Supreme Court interpreted the word “laws” to encompass only state statutory law and not case law. In the absence of state statutory law, the federal courts were therefore free to make their own common law. When this conflicted with state common law, a plaintiff in a diversity suit was able to shop for the more favorable law by selecting either the state or the federal court.
- “[F]ederal common law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity.” Id. at 508, 1028. Since state law gave rise to the claim, “there is no need for a uniform federal rule.” policy concerns favored in-state uniformity, absent a conflict with a federal interest. The Court thus “adopt[ed], as the federally prescribed rule of decision, the law that would be applied by the state courts of the State in which the federal diversity court sits.” Id. In the instant case, the (even express) dismissal “on the merits” did not have claim-preclusive effect as a matter of federal law, derived from state law. As in , the decision explores the reach of a concededly applicable Federal Rule, in light of both federal and state policies, to give meaning to
- The Court thus undertook a functional analysis that is not all that different from “false conflicts” analysis in traditional choice of law. See above at p. 166. On the one hand, the state’s statute of limitations exists to cut off stale claims, and the service requirement is an integral part of defining when that occurs. Importing a tolling provision, in the form of a different service provision from another system of law, might defeat the state statute of limitations. On the other hand, Federal Rule 3 can be read as not affecting limitation periods, but rather to serve as the starting point for the timetable of events in federal court (such as when the defendant’s answer must be filed).
- New York law instructs the (New York) Appellate Division to review a trial court jury’s award for excessiveness or inadequacy, measured by what would be “reasonable compensation.” The state-law provision is clearly “outcome-determinative.” Can it be applied in federal court in the face of the Seventh Amendment and its prohibition of appellate review of jury awards? The Court achieved an accommodation. The federal trial court, as the counterpart of a New York state trial court, must follow the New York (“outcome-determinative”) procedure. The U.S. Court of Appeals, functioning on the same level as the New York Appellate Division for these purposes, may not undertake another of the jury verdict for Seventh Amendment reasons. It may, however, review the federal trial court’s determination for abuse of discretion, as appellate review for abuse of discretion does not offend the Seventh Amendment. The judgment was vacated because the trial court had not undertaken an analysis of whether...
- Damages have generally been characterized as “procedural” in U.S. conflicts law (in contrast to Europe). Might the decision inspire a shift?
- Open Chapter
Preface iii 2 results
- This Eighth Edition of the
- Comments and suggestions from students and colleagues have been of great help over the years and again with the respect to the most recent edition. I again do thank them. As he did for the prior edition, Daniel J. Levin, J.D., again gave me outstanding help and support for this edition, for which I am particularly grateful.
- Open Chapter
Chapter X Constitutional Limitations on State Choice of Law213 88 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter dealt with the choice of
- the Supreme Court permitted the application of the forum’s longer statute of limitations. It cited the historical view that statutes of limitations only deal with the remedy and do not affect the underlying right. As a matter of “tradition,” they are characterized as and states may constitutionally apply their own procedural law. Justice Brennan concurred because he found that Kansas had a “procedural in the application of its statute. He was troubled, however, that the majority reached the result on the basis of “tradition,” because practice of a conflicts rule over an extended time does not necessarily make it constitutional. Justice O’Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist also concurred, but expressly left open the question whether the result should be different if the other state considered its statute of limitations to be substantive.
- . In this class action, 97% of the members of the plaintiff class had no connection with the Kansas forum, and 99% of the gas leases giving rise to the claims involved were located in states other than Kansas. “Given Kansas’ lack of ‘interest’ in claims unrelated to that State, and the substantive conflict with jurisdictions such as Texas [where some leases were located and some claimants resided], . . . application of Kansas law to every claim in this case is sufficiently arbitrary and unfair as to exceed constitutional limits.”
- on choice of law. This is so because apart from the early decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which mandated the application of a law,
- The plaintiff had contracted, in Mexico, with the defendant, a Mexican insurance company, for insurance coverage for a vessel located in Mexico. The policy covered the vessel only in Mexican waters, contained a choice-of-law clause in favor of Mexican law, and provided that all claims for loss had to be brought within one year. This provision was valid under the chosen law but not under Texas law. The U.S. Supreme Court disapproved of application of Texas law. The
- Open Chapter
Summary of Contents 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
West Academic Publishing’s Law School Advisory Board 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law Emeritus, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of LawUniversity of Virginia School of Law
- Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Open Chapter
Chapter VI Dissolution of Domestic Relationships and Its Consequences (Support, Custody)129 86 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As in most domestic relations cases, there is usually no choice-of-law problem. Courts will apply forum law if they have jurisdiction (but see #4 below). That said, the question of when a court has jurisdiction to decree an annulment has not been finally settled.
- In principle, foreign-country divorces are recognized in the United States on the same basis as sister-state divorces. There may be a problem, however, because many foreign countries do not require domicile of one of the parties as a condition for divorce jurisdiction. Instead, they may base jurisdiction only on residence. However, unlike American law, they will then often apply the substantive law of the parties’ home state(s). In an interstate case in the United States, the personal appearance of both parties (bilateral divorce) would mean that the jurisdictional issue (lack of domicile) is lost for purposes of collateral attack for want of appeal. (U.S. law) is not available under the foreign forum’s law (where the U.S. Constitution of course does not furnish the standard for review).
- Native American Indian law regulates domestic relations of members of the particular Nation on the reservation. The law of the Navajo Nation permits and will recognize informal marriage, either in the form of a common law marriage or one performed by a medicine man. However, formal dissolution of a marriage and formal certification of divorce is needed for the latter to be valid. . Again, recognition elsewhere would depend on the validity of the divorce on the Nation’s reservation. See (Navajo common law marriage recognized for purpose of invoking marital privilege when sought to be deposed in civil action). See generally (history of jurisdiction of reservations of Indian Nations in domestic matters).
- The easiest case involves an annulment proceeding at the common domicile of the parties when that state is also the place of celebration of the purported marriage. There need be no inquiry whether jurisdiction is , and since the forum state and the state of celebration are the same, local law will of course be applied.
- It was noted at the beginning of this subsection that foreign countries will often base jurisdiction on less than domicile but then apply the parties’ home-state law. Since we do it the other way around, foreign parties who obtain an American divorce may face recognition difficulties in their home state because the American court did not apply home-state law (it applied forum law). If the parties’ home state would not recognize the American divorce for this reason, remarriage would be precluded or bigamous.
- Open Chapter
Part Six Issues of Federalism 3 results
Copyright Page 3 results
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 305 53 results (showing 5 best matches)
Part Three Domestic Relations 2 results
- Publication Date: January 22nd, 2019
- ISBN: 9781640201170
- Subject: Conflict of Laws
- Series: Black Letter Outlines
- Type: Outlines
- Description: Black Letter Outlines are designed to help a law student recognize and understand the basic principles and issues of law covered in a law school course. Black Letter Outlines can be used both as a study aid when preparing for classes and a review of the subject matter when studying for an examination. Conflict of Laws deals with the resolution of interstate and foreign country private law cases. This outline covers: overview of litigational matters; domestic relations; problems of what law applies in particular types of cases; and issues of federalism.
