Conflict of Laws

<Full faith and Credit to Sister state judgment >2/43............................................................................1

<Applicable law –general >...................................................................................................................1
<Applicable law –tort>1/43...................................................................................................................2
<Applicable law –contracts (express choice of law)>2/43.....................................................................2
<Applicable law –contract (no or invalid choice of provision)>1/43.....................................................2
<Applicable law –property 1/43............................................................................................................3

<Full faith and Credit to Sister state judgment >2/43

The issue is whether the [recognizing jurisdiction] recognize the judgment issued by a court in [rendering
jurisdiction].
＊ (X 州州裁判所の判決を Y 州で enforce できるかという問題の場合、X が rendering jurisdiction、Y が
recognizing jurisdiction)

The judgment in the rendering jurisdiction is entitled to full faith and credit if;
(1) the rendering state has had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter,
Exception: fully and fairly litigated
(2) the judgment entered by the rendering state has beenwas on the merits, and
* default judgment and consent judgment are on the merit.
(3) the judgment entered by rendering court iswas final judgment.

<Applicable law –general >

• vested rights approach (First Restatement) 2/45 1/43
• interest Analysis approach 3/45 2/43
• most significant relationship approach 3/453/43
The issue is which state law will apply the case.

<forum が federal district court の場合の前提>

Diversity cases Erie doctrine (federal procedural law, state substantive law) & choice of law
substantive  The federal district court in a diversity case must apply the conflict laws rule of the
state in which it sits.

< forum が state court の場合はここから>

＊ state law がどのアプローチをとるかは通常問題文中で指定される。
The governing law will be selected by the forum court using the [specified approach].

 Under the vested rights approach (First Restatement,) the court will apply the law of the state
mandated by the applicable vesting rule. The rule is selected according to the relevant
substantive area of law. このアプローチではこの論点ならここの法律、というように一義的に決まる。

 Under the interest Analysis approach, the court will consider which states have a legitimate interest
in the outcome of the litigation. The forum court will apply its own law as long as it has legitimate
interest. If the forum state has no interest, it will apply the law of another interested state.
The forum court will determine whether there is a true conflict or false conflict.
このアプローチでは事例を分析して判断するしかない。基本的に類型化できない。
検討ステップ１）複数の州が interest を持つ場合なのか、一つの州のみが interest を持つ場合なのか
検討ステップ２）forum state に interest はあるか
*自州が interest を有する限り、他州との interest の大小に拘らず、自州の law を適用するというのが 1 つの特徴。

1
  Under the most significant relationship approach (Second Restatement), the court will apply the
law of the state which is most significantly related to the outcome of the litigation. To determine
this, the court will consider (i) factual connection and (ii) policy principles.
各訴訟類型ごとに考慮する事項が大体決まっている。Factual connection と policy principal を両方検討して、total テスト。

<Applicable law –tort>1/45 3

FEB_2009_Q1
The issue is which state law will apply the case.
(X 州の 州民である A と B が Y 州で交通事故を起こして、A が B を X 州の州裁判所に訴えたと仮定)

まず torts case であることを認定。

Under vested rights approach (First Restatement,) the court will apply the law of that state mandated by
the applicable vesting rule. The rule is selected according to the relevant substantive area of law. This is a
tort case. The vesting rule for torts cases applies the law of the place of injury.

Under interest analysis approach, the court will consider the court will consider which states have a
legitimate interest in the outcome of the litigation. The forum court will apply its own law as long as it
has legitimate interest. If the forum state has no interest, it will apply the law of another interested state.
(原則どおり)
＊州民に対して interest があると考えるので X 州のみが legitimate interest を持つことになる。

Under most significant relationship approach (Second Restatement), the court will apply the law of the
state which is most significantly related to the outcome of the litigation. To determine this, the court will
consider connecting facts and policy principles.
As factual connections, the court will consider (1) the place of injury, (2) the place of conduct causing
injury, (3) the place where the parties domicile, (4) the place where the relationship, if any, is centered.
As policy principles, the court will consider the relevant policies of (1) the forum state, and (2) other
connected states.

<Applicable law –contracts (express choice of law provision)>2/45 3

The issue is the state law which the choice of law provision chose will apply the case.

The choice of law provision will be enforced if it is valid and express, and the court need not to
perform choice of law analysis.

The choice of law provision is invalid if:

(1) the law selected has not reasonable relationship to the contract;
(2) the provision was included without true mutual assent (fraud, duress, mistake);. or
(3) the choice of law is contrary to a substantial policy interest of another state that has more of a
significant interest in the matter.

2
<Applicable law –contract (no or invalid choice of provision)> 2/45 1/43
The issue is which state law will apply the case.
(e.g. X 州の 州民である A と B が Y 州で契約を締結したが、B が履行しないため、A は X 州裁判所に B の契
約違反で提訴が未成年であることを理由として、A が B を X 州の州裁判所に訴えた、B は未成年であったた
め契約無効であると主張。)

まず contract case であることを認定。

Under vested rights approach (First Restatement,) the court will apply the law of that state mandated
by the applicable vesting rule. The rule is selected according to the relevant substantive area of law .
This is a contract case.
(1) If the case is contracts case involving a question about validity or formation, the applicable
vesting rule is the law of the place of execution.
(2) If the case is contract case involving a question about the performance, the applicable vesting
rule is the law of the place of performance.

Under interest Analysis approach, the court will consider the court will consider which states have a
legitimate interest in the outcome of the litigation. The forum court will apply its own law as long as it
has legitimate interest. If the forum state has no interest, it will apply the law of another interested
state. (原則どおり)
＊例の場合、締結された場所である州は契約自由の促進という interest を有し、未成年を契約の無効自由とす
るのは未成年保護が目的なので未成年の当事者の住所地である州も interest を有する。

Under most significant relationship approach (Second Restatement), the court will apply the law of
the state which is most significantly related to the outcome of the litigation. To determine this, the
court will consider connecting facts and policy principles.
 As factual connections, the court will consider (1) the place of contracting, (2) the place of
negotiation, (3) the place of performance, (4) the place where the party domicile.
 As policy principles, the court will consider (1) the relevant policies of the forum state, and (2)
the relevant policies of other connected states, and (3) reasonable expectations of the parties.

<Applicable law –property 2/45 1/43

The issue is which state law will apply the case.

[real property]1/43
• If the case involves immovable property, the applicable law is the law of the situs.
• If real property is merely incidental to a contract (e.g. mortgage agreements, real estate brokerage
contracts), then traditional conflict of laws rules must be used to determine the applicable law.
 Vested Rights approach (First Restatement): always the law of the situs governs
 Interest Analysis approach, the law of the situs will generally govern, UNLESS another state has a
greater interest in having its law applied.
 Most significant relationship approach (Second Restatement) : it is presumed that the state where the
property is located has the most significant relationship to the action , and that law will govern the
action.

[personal property - inter vivos transaction -]

• If the case is inter vivos transaction and involves movable property, the applicable law is the law of
the situs at the time of transaction.

3
[personal property-inheritance] 2/43
• If the case involves a matter of relating to inheritance and movable property, the applicable law is
the law of the decedents’ domicile at the date of death .

どのアプローチをとっても書くべきことは同じ。