Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION Why Study Conflicts? You should always ask yourself the following questions: 1. Where to file the suit – Jurisdiction? a. Which State has a relationship that would allow them to render a judgment against the defendant? 2. Which law applies? Substantive or Procedural? 3. What is the effect of the judgment (can it be exported) – How do you enforce a judgment somewhere else? The three important topics that conflicts law attempts to resolve: 1. Domicile (legal residence) 2. Jurisdiction  Subject Matter  Personal o General or Specific o In personum, In rem, Quasi in rem) 3. Choice of law *The concept of conflicts in these various areas does two things: (1) It lends legitimacy to the decisions that are ultimately made (recognition that the parties had a fair opportunity to present their case when they had their day in court); and (2) to bring some uniformity to the results.


Chapter 2 Domicile: The Chosen Point of Entry Domicile: Theoretically, there is but one domicile per individual. In TN, your domicile is a place to which, when you are away from it, you intend to return. A good definition of domicile is as follows: It is where you reside with an intention to abide, to stay there for good. Which, when you are gone from, you intend to return. Why is Domicile important? It is a contact point, the point with which you have a relationship with a sovereign (which would trigger the application of their laws). It's important to resolve jurisdictional issues. In re Estate of Jones: Jones came to America from Wales and became a citizen of Iowa. Jones decided to move back to Wales and he deposited $20,000 in an Iowa bank for safekeeping until he got to Wales. In route to Wales, the ship he was aboard sank and he died. Jones' domicile at the time of his death would determine the distribution of his estate. This case held that Jones' domicile of choice was Iowa at the time of death because he hadn't completely made it back to Wales. A domicile, once legally acquired, is retained until a new domicile is secured, and in the acquisition of such new domicile, both the fact and the intention must occur. Just intending and taking steps toward making Wales his new domicile was not good enough. As soon as you physically arrive with the intent for this to be your domicile...then it is. Three types of domicile: 1. domicile of origin (that of their parents when they were born) 2. domicile of choice 3. domicile by operation of law The Artificial Fiction of Reverter: this is an English rule which provided that: when a person left a domicile of choice intending never to return and it seemed unrealistic to say that the person retained a domicile there, the domicile of origin, originally acquired by operation of law, would renew again by operation of law, until a new domicile of choice had been acquired. The US does not apply this rule. White v. Tennant: White had been domiciled all of his life in West Virginia where his extended family resided. White and his wife then moved to a part of the family farm across the Pennsylvania border. They got there and started unpacking. Wife got sick with typhoid and they were invited to stay in West Virginia with extended family until wife recovered. White got sick and died without ever spending a night in their Pennsylvania home. Under West Virginia law, his wife got everything, under Pennsylvania law, his estate would be split with his wife and siblings. Court held that he had in fact intended to make Pennsylvania his new domicile and that it had become so. In this case, as compared to Jones, White had actually made to his new domicile of choice with the intent of remaining there. He had perfected his choice. *For a change in domicile of choice you must have: abandonment, intention, action and actual arrival at the new domicile. * Ships: it is part of the common law and the law of nations, that a ship on the high seas is a part of the territory of that state to which she belongs; and therefore an English ship is deemed

to be part of England. This wasn't mentioned in Jones. This would apply, for example, where an American woman, pregnant, gave birth to a child mid-ocean, on a ship registered to Britain. The ship is territory of where it's registered so the child would have dual citizenship. * Wives & children: domicile by operation of law results generally from the domestic relations of husband and wife, or parent and child. At one time wives' domicile was considered that of her husband but now in the US, the domicile of either spouse is determined by their individual intentions and actions. Until emancipated, a legitimate child‘s domicile is that of the parents and, if the parent's are separated, that of the parent with whom the child is living. * Declarations of intentions: where a person claims to be domiciled, should be given some weight, however, it may be overcome by evidence of strong circumstances to the contrary * Nationality as a connecting factor: In many continental countries, nationality rather than domicile is used as the basis, or "connecting factor," for determining the governing law for certain personal rights. * Residence: Residence, rather than domicile, is the connecting factor usually found in statutes. However, the context in which the word "residence" is used must be examined closely....because it's possible for a person to have more than one residence...but they can only have one domicile. * Improper Motive: The impropriety of a person's motive in coming to a place does not prevent his acquisition there of a domicile. Legal residence does not depend upon the legality of the object of the residence; it rests upon physical presence in a dwelling coupled with an intent to make that dwelling one's home. * Military: domicile of person in the military is their point of entry into the armed forces. * Voter registration: can be evidence of one's domicile...but it is just one factor to look at. Concerning prisoners, there is a split regarding whether they can consider the prison location their new domicile. In re Estate of Clark: Clark died while domiciled in Virginia with his wife. His estate consisted of property in New York and Virginia, the bulk of which consisted of securities held in a NY bank. His will required that his estate be administered under the laws of NY. Widow elected against the will. There was argument as whether NY or Virginia law should apply to the distribution of Clark's estate. The court held that as between two states, the law of that one that has the predominant, if not sole, interest in the protection and regulation of the rights of the person or persons involved should be invoked. A husband, domiciled in a foreign state, by selecting NY law to regulate his testamentary dispositions, cannot cut off or otherwise affect the more favorable right given his widow to elect by the law of their domicile. Here, the right of a widow to inherit despite the will is not a testamentary disposition, but rather a restriction on the right to make a testamentary disposition. The rights of the widow are more protected under Virginia law, so that is the law that applies. Concerning how property passes: *Real property is governed by the law of the location or situs. *Personal property is governed by the law of the domicile of the decedent.

He subsequently moved to NY. including their own conflicts law. They are limited to (1) federal questions and (2) diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in federal court. the court. the P could not file suit and then move to establish diversity jurisdiction. and an actual removal. however. they decided to move to Switzerland. the substitute service was effective and valid. he was involved in a car accident. Puerto Rico's age of majority was 21. The district court dismissed for want of diversity. *By mutual agreement. Rodriguez-Diaz v. Clark tried to change the law. Federal courts cannot have common law applied to substantive law in diversity of citizenship cases. holding that since P was a minor under Puerto Rico law he was incompetent to change his domicile and thus remained a Puerto Rican domiciliary. continues until a new one is acquired. Here though. will determine domicile of the party or parties using the forum's law. Process was served by placing copy in the mail and affixing a copy to their apartment door while the D's were in France in route to Switzerland. with intention to abandon the old and to acquire the new one. Alvord & Alvord v. In his will. whether of origin or choice. The forum. 4 . The mere intention to acquire a new domicile avails nothing. is not determined by state law but rather by federal common law. To constitute a change of domicile of choice. the federal courts can have common law regarding the construction of federal statutes. *Whenever one is faced with a question about jurisdiction. though not merely temporary. *The forum law will determine the domicile of the litigants using the forum's law and conflicts law.In this case the property in question was personal property situated in NY. he is incompetent to do so. Patenore: The D's were originally domiciled in NY where they sued by P. At age 17. before they were served with process. Sierra-Martinez: P lived in Puerto Rico. one party cannot confer or select the law or forum. he moved first and then filed suit. The state of a person's domicile. he was 18. However. there must be actual residence in the new place. etc. 2 analyses' are required: (1) does the court have subject matter jurisdiction. under the law of the former domicile. A person may change his domicile to another state even if. treaties. and (2) does the court have in personum (or in rem) jurisdiction Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. in a unilateral transaction. Court held that the existing domicile. In this case. * You must establish domicile by actually getting to the location after a move. However. is insufficient without concurrent intent. constitution. *There is no federal common law as it relates to substantive law in diversity cases. as this is governed by the law of the state. He later filed a personal injury action against the D and a medical facility in US District Court in Puerto Rico. while NY's was 18. They used federal common law to determine the P's domicile in this case because they were interpreting their own statute. Because D's had not reached Switzerland when service was made. At the time he filed the action. two parties may select the law and forum to apply in case of dispute.

General common-law requirements for Jurisdiction: 1.   TYPES OF JURISDICTION  General Jurisdiction: Defendant is resident of where court is.  Specific Jurisdiction: cause of action related to contact in forum. Tennessee Court has general jurisdiction over Bridgestone because company resides here. Alabama court has specific jurisdiction because the cause of action arose there. Notice to defendant 3. the courts of that island had no authority or power to bind the citizens of any country in that fashion. He hadn't been present on the island and the judgment had been awarded by default. whether or not they had ever been on the island. General Appearance: submitting to jurisdiction of the court.Chapter 3: JURISDICTION of COURTS Introduction to Jurisdiction and General Considerations     Jurisdiction: basis sufficient to allow court to decide & effectuate rights of parties.  rt does not follow its own rules then other courts will not give it credit. Buchanan v. The defendant objected on the grounds of inadequate service. In rem: power of a court over a thing so that its judgment is valid against the rights of every person in the thing. Quasi in rem: type of jurisdiction of a court based on a person's interest in property within the jurisdiction of the court. Examples: You are driving your Ford in AL and tire blows out. Power which a court has over the defendant's person and which is required before a court can enter a personal or in personal judgment. In personam: jurisdiction over person. Some contact with parties or property 5 . the court must have jurisdiction over the parties at the outset of the action. He brought a copy of the judgment to the courts of London to have it executed. yet it is the defendant's interest in the property that serves as the basis of jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction 2. Special appearance: limited appearance to object to court's jurisdiction. Refers to proceedings that are brought against the defendant personally. Rucker: In this case. The court said that even if the law of the island was understood to mean that service could be made on anyone in this fashion. Plaintiff countered that it was the law of the island that service could be made on those who were absent from the island by nailing a copy of the summons to the court house door. Issue: ―Can the island of Tobago bind the rights of the whole world?‖ Holding: Before the judgment of a court can be given legal effect. the plaintiff sued and received a judgment from a court on the island of Tobago. whether controversy is related to parties or not.

If they don‘t find it. The corporation maintained minimum contacts with the state and therefore the state could take it to court. It mandates that each state give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of sister states. Article IV of the US Constitution is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Bases of Judicial Jurisdiction Over Natural and Legal Persons In Search of new Jurisdictional Standards: The Era of International Shoe. that enforcing court is supposed to make a cursory examination to see that there was (a) subject matter jurisdiction and (b) a type of relationship. The D did not pay unemployment compensation assessments in the state of Washington so the state sued D by service of process in two manner. State of Washington D (corp) had a salesman in Washington and had a good business there although D did not have an office there. and "Fairness" (SPECIFIC JURISDICTION) International Shoe Co. The rule enunciated is that in order to subject the D to a judgment in personum. Louis office of D.. both as a federal citizen and a state citizen. v.Will one forum recognize the judgment of another forum? We have a federal system in which there are certain constitutional principles that interplay. And then we have the Supremacy clause as the states relate to the federal forum. The 5th Amendment deals with due process and Federal action. All of these interplay in this analysis. a proper basis. international forums. The State of Washington was trying to hold the company responsible for it‘s local taxes even though the only presence was a small sales force. Then we have the full faith and credit clauses of the US Constitution as the states relate to each other. When a judgment comes across a state line for enforcement. Holding: Yes. "Minimum Contacts". The suit took place in state court and D lost. If we are dealing with foreign forums. that state should refuse to enforce the judgment. Issue: Whether the Washington State court had jurisdiction over the D (a corporation located in another state but employing salesmen to work in Washington). Due process = fundamental fairness. if the corporation be not present within the territory of the forum." Not as a matter of right. but a matter of courtesy. then that is a matter of "comity. The 14th Amendment deals with due process and State action. That is the due process clause. and we are dealing with judgments between sovereigns.. with the expectation of reciprocal enforcement. that "he have such minimum 6 . 28 USC 1738 give us a basis for recognizing other states' judgments for enforcement. as to how a forum relates to the individual citizen. acceptance. First. for the entry of due process for the judgment. 1) serving one of the salesman working in Washington and 2) sending one by mail to the St.

Company had actual notice and company did not respond she obtained a default judgment. if he be not present within the territory of the forum. mailed from there. and how extensive and continuous their contacts are Claim and the parties must be related to the forum Long Arm Statute Types  Specific  Up to maximum extent of due process Other Means of Obtaining Jurisdiction  In state service of process  Consent  Appearance  Domicile Factors to Consider After Minimum Contacts Established  The burden on the defendant  The foreign state‘s interest  The plaintiff‘s interests  The judicial system‘s interest o The interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies McGee v." Due process requires only that in order to subject the D to a judgment in personum. Denckla 7 . Hansen v. International Life Insurance This was the case of the Texas insurance company sued in the California Court even though the company did not have any presence in the state. and the insured was a resident of the state when he died. Texas refused to extend full faith and credit to a California judgment in favor of the plaintiff. that he have such minimum contacts with it that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. what they actually did in the state.     This is the case that established the ―minimum contacts‖ test Must be a reasonable and fair determination Must consider the inconvenience to D. Denckla Hansen v.contacts with it that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Holding:The USSC found that the insurance contract formed sufficient basis for jurisdiction The company did have sufficient contact with the state even though the plaintiff was the only policy holder in the state. Contract was delivered in CA. This case went farther than any other and the Supreme Court backed away in three months.

Acts to ensure that the States through their courts do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system Foreseeability: That the defendant‘s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there. who was an indispensable party to the litigation. Neither the Delaware court nor the Florida court would recognize the judgment of the other. The court disagreed. NH had a longer statute of limitations.Protects the defendant against the burdens of litigation in a distant or inconvenient forum (reasonableness or fairness). Delaware trustee filed suit claiming the trust was valid under its laws. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. they had no jurisdiction over the other parties. v. whether Florida had properly exercised jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. Donner executed another Delaware trust worth $400. Dealer did not foresee the vehicle ending up in OK since they primarily did business in NY and NJ. The two other daughters filed an action in Florida court to invalidate the terms of the will and trust. Holding: Court said the main issue was the foreseeability of being brought into court in OK. Keeton v. in that case had made many contacts in California. The Florida court had said that its probate authority over the Donner will was enough to give it jurisdiction over the nonresident beneficiaries and trustees. She lives in NY but sued in NH. pointing out that such a position would give all probate courts jurisdiction over all nonresident defendants in all states with no further contacts required. They brought a claim against the dealer in Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Supreme Court claimed that Oklahoma did have jurisdiction. In Florida. Donner later retired and moved to Florida.Trust established in Delaware by Donner who was domiciled in Pennsylvania. On a move to Arizona. The real purpose of this case was to try to get this case into State court. Since the Florida courts had no jurisdiction over the trustees. Only contact with NH is circulation of 10K-15K issues a month. The Florida court found that the execution of the second trust was comparable to the insurance contract in McGee.) 8 . and whether Delaware should have honored the Florida decision. She died and will was probated in Florida. 2. so the corpus would go back into the estate. The USSC found only two issues.000 for the benefit of her daughter and she also executed a will for the benefit of two other daughters. (It was the only state where the statute of limitations had not ran. whereas the insurance co. Holding: Supreme Court held that there were insufficient contacts with the Delaware trustee to exercise jurisdiction of the trustee. they were involved in an accident in Oklahoma. Court said this case is distinguished because the Delaware trustee never performed any acts in Florida. Woodson Forseeability Test Plaintiffs were NY residents and bought their car from a NY dealer. Appealed to USSC based on the due process clause. Hustler Magazine Plaintiff sued over 5 separate issues of Hustler which she claimed libeled her. Insufficient minimum contacts. Two Functions of Minimum Contacts: 1.

On the other hand. The plaintiff sued in CA. The court in Gallagher v. this Court held that the activities of a subsidiary are not necessarily enough to render a parent subject to a court's jurisdiction. Calder & Keeton Notes (pg. who were both domiciled out of state. Calder set forth the concept of "the effects of the defendant's conduct out of state on the state exercising jurisdiction. "In the only cases in which it has considered the question. Jones (1984) Keeton's companion case was Calder v. his presence in the state would be a sufficient basis for a valid personal judgment that could be enforced against his firm's property elsewhere. Court pointed out that the defendant's intentional and allegedly tortuous. had minimum contacts with the forum. 84-88) Calder v. Stream of Commerce Theory First Seen Here in This Case . for service of process or otherwise. of "piercing". Mazda Motor of America (E. as a result. actions were expressly aimed at CA and that plaintiff suffered the majority of her harm there and the magazine had its largest circulation in CA. mere presence on personal business of a shareholder. where a CA domiciled actress claimed to have been libeled by an article in the national Enquirer. the parent would have to undertake. but for the existence of the subsidiary. When the courts subject the out-of-state parent to jurisdiction in the state in which the subsidiary acts or has acted. Jones (1984). service on the subsidiary is service on the company. or director would not furnish a basis for an in personum judgment against the corporation.Products delivered in the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. Bottom line is that contacts were sufficient and the single publication issue was not addressed. the two are the same. *Whether personal service on a partner gives jurisdiction to bind partnership property outside the state? If the firm were owned by an individual. if the nonresident firm were incorporated. officer. for purposes of service of process when the subsidiary is engaged in functions that. 9 . Holding: Hustler does have minimum contacts and is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in this libel action.The USSC found that there is no justification for restricting libel actions to the plaintiff's home forum. This is an intentional tort and the intent is transferred to the general populace in a defamation act.Pa.1992) reviewed the case law and adopted a broadly phrased test: "jurisdictional contacts of a subsidiary should be imputed to the parent." * Whether a court can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state parent corporation. If. they may do so on agency principles or by disregarding the corporate separateness ("piercing the corporate veil"). and the USSC held that both the writer and the editor. when the subsidiary does business in the forum state? The USSC wrote in the Schlunk case.D.

This case is persuasive only--not binding. They offered to purchase computer software to assist them. Patterson got the contract and agreed to place the computer software on the system.. but recovery will be permitted to be had only out of firm. as opposed to individual property. d. if they had emailed this defamatory material to customers in Tennessee. The website was viewed by their customers in and around the Florida area. that might be sufficient contact for Tennessee to exercise jurisdiction. It was an ongoing relationship. The TN plaintiff tried to bring the defendant to Tennessee to defend the defamation suit. If by the local law of the second state the partnership or association is not subject to suit in its firm or common name. (2) A valid judgment rendered against a partnership or association is a binding adjudication as to the liability of the partnership or association with respect to its assets in every state. However. CompuServe filed a declaratory judgment in Ohio. He knowingly reached out to Ohio and benefited by that. Comment. There was an agreement that staid the contract would be governed and construed in accordance with Ohio law. Compuserve v. provided that it is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of that state and by the local law of that state may be sued in its firm or common name. CompuServe started marketing their own software that was so similar to his that he sued. Inc. The Ohio long arm statue is one of those that extend to the limits of due process.. The court held that just posting such statements on their own website was not enough contact to give Tennessee jurisdiction. Bailey v.. Issue: Does Ohio have personal jurisdiction? Yes. the action to enforce the judgment may be maintained against the members individually. as between States of the US. A very active site where the defendant is projecting themselves out of their home state and into 10 . ecommerce: A passive site like the one in Bailey will probably not give Tennessee jurisdiction. this result is required by full faith and credit. An attorney out of Texas.The Restatement provides some guidance on this topic: Partnerships or Other Unincorporated Associations: (1) A state in which a partnership or other unincorporated association is subject to suit in the firm or common name has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over the partnership or association if under the circumstances it could exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual. An action to enforce the judgment may be maintained against the partnership or association in another state. A valid judgment rendered against a partnership or other unincorporated association under the circumstances stated in Subsection (1) will be recognized and enforced in other states.. Tenn. He entered into a contract agreeing to be governed by Ohio law. and. 2000) A Florida Company posted defamatory statements about an out-of-state competitor (located in Tennessee) on the Florida Company's own website. (W. Turbine Design. Effect of judgment.. He intended to conduct business with the Ohio Company.D. Patterson CompuServe is a computer information service out of Columbus Ohio.

The Florida Corporation sued the defendant in Florida over not paying franchise royalties. ***In Federal District Court. All agreements were to be made and enforced in Florida. Defendant purposefully reached out and negotiated with a FL corp. these factors are to be considered to determine whether assertion of personal jurisdiction comport with ―fair play and substantial justice.. The Plaintiff‘s interest-convenient and effective relief. Where individuals ‗‗purposefully derive benefit‘‘ from their interstate activities it may well be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other States for consequences that arise proximately from such activities.others might suffice to establish sufficient contacts so that it would not violate due process to make the defendant go to those other states and defend such a suit. The defendant in this case purposefully established minimum contacts by reaching out beyond Michigan and purposefully negotiating the contract with the Florida Corporation.. Once Defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state.but is a factor in making the jurisdictional determination. The only contact with TN was that the video was distributed to a library in TN by email. Burger King v. the Due Process Clause may not readily be wielded as a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations that have been voluntarily assumed. The plaintiff was from Florida and the defendant company was in California. Ct. 1996): Defamation case based on the ―Switched at Birth‖ case. The cause of action MUST relate to the minimum contacts. is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Judicial system‘s interest in obtaining resolution o 5. Holding: A contract can be a sufficient contact with a forum. The state‘s interest in adjudicating o 3. o 4. It uses the same standards as the states. Rudzewicz Fairness factors This was a case of a Michigan franchisee who defaulted on his agreement with Burger King and was sued by BK under Florida law. One of the children sued based on inaccuracies and pain and suffering. and purposefully availed himself of its benefits. Her claim was based on unauthorized use of her name and story. in diversity cases. The burden on the defendant o 2. The defendant had a 20 year contract with Burger King which involved negotiations with the plaintiff headquarters in FL as well as the purchase of equipment from FL and ongoing supervision from FL. The claim was dismissed and affirmed on appeal. A single purchase within a forum does not necessarily give in personum jurisdiction over the person (specific or general). Shared interest of the several states social policy A contract is but a contact 11      . Gibbons v Schwartz-Nobel (TN.  A contract with a choice of law provision. in itself. Defendant knew this and voluntarily consented to FL jurisdiction. The agreement stated FL law was to settle disputes. No real contacts in Tennessee.‖ o 1. App. the federal district courts only have jurisdiction if the underlying state court would have in personum jurisdiction. The FL court exercised jurisdiction over the defendant and the USSC upheld that exercise.

.  interest of the forum. Nor will the litigation present a burden for which there is no corresponding benefit. The tube causes an accident in CA and everyone is sued. Advertising in the forum.   Choice-of-law provisions are a factor that may be considered for jurisdictional purposes but the court does not tell us how they can be considered. 12 . Even if contacts are met is it fair? To allow an exercise of personal jurisdiction (due process) the action of the defendant must be purposefully directed at the forum State. Asahi Metal Industry Co. o 4. the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. Holding: No. Designing the product for the market in forum. Factors:  Burden on defendant. This is what happened after World-Wide Volkswagen. deliberately ―reached out beyond‖ Mich. Marketing the product through a distributor in the forum state.  interstate judicial system‘s interest and  shared interest of the several states. the supreme court ruled on this case which is so similar to Volkswagen. something more than the mere act of placing a product in the stream of commerce..  plaintiff‘s interest. There is no fair play since Asahi would have to transverse a great distance to defend itself. The Burger King case is good for the plaintiff's bar.  "The placement of a product into the stream of commerce. The tube Co. Superior Court of California This is the tire stem case that deals with the Japanese manufacturer (Asahi) who provided the stems to a tube company in Taiwan. subject you to the jurisdiction of the Courts here.  Purposefully directed factors: o 1. is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. The key issue is does an awareness that your product will reach the U. V. Establishing channels for providing advice to customers in the forum. Ltd." Sometime the circuit court misinterpret the decisions of the supreme court and continue to rule differently. Between the defendant and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. There was no purposeful act directed at this forum. . The “substantial connection”.  As long as a participant in the process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State. for the purchase of a franchise and its benefits.   4-4 On the Stream of Commerce personal jurisdiction. Interests and contacts are so slight that they do not rise to the level required by International Shoe. And negotiated with a Florida Corp.  8-0 on the exercise of jurisdiction not meeting the ―fair play and substantial justice‖ standard. Stream of commerce concept is still up in the air with the USSC. o 3. brings Asahi in as a 3rd party defendant and Asahi files a motion to quash summons claiming the Court has no jurisdiction. R. therefore. o 2.S. without more.

including business torts.  Courts have applied the effects test to other intentional torts. or even necessary. He posts information and a company out of California finds out about it and files suit in California. Special Jurisdiction -??? Make sure you understand General Jurisdiction real well for this course. Middle ground-Where a user can exchange information jurisdiction depends on a examining of the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange.Pavlovich v. California joins with other jurisdictions that require additional evidence of express aiming or intentional targeting. His acts were not to cause intentional harm to the company. and the forum. 13 . It was not transacting any business. knowingly and repeated transmissions over the internet-personal jurisdiction is proper     *Moki Mac River Expeditions v. The company said he misappropriated their trade secrets knowing that his actions would virtually impact an array of substantial California business and industries.‘‘ Passive posting is the opposite end. This requires forum-related contacts to be substantively relevant. . The website merely posted information.  But for those contacts. Internet-At one end of the spectrum are situations where defendant clearly does business. Knowledge alone was insufficient. . Adopted by this court. Courts have ‗‗struggled somewhat with Calder‘s import. to prove the claim.  Substantial connection to operative facts. Purposeful availment alone will not support an exercise of specific jurisdiction. Here purposeful contact that is a proximate cause of injury. the litigation. Simply posting information that is accessible in a foreign jurisdiction is not enough. Enters contracts.  Substantive Relevance/Proximate Cause. Purposeful availment has no jurisdictional relevance unless the defendant‘s liability arises from or relates to the forum contacts. the degree of relatedness to the litigation necessary for specific jurisdiction goes down. Drugg (page 110) Trying to analyze the minority view in Helicopteros. Superior Court Pavlovich is a resident of Texas and president of Media Drive a Texas company. the C/A would never have arisen. This considers contact that occur over the ―entire course of events‖. recognizing that the case cannot stand for the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a nonresident who places products into the ―stream of commerce‖ with the expectation that they will be sold in the forum state is subject to the forum‘s jurisdiction. The court said no jurisdiction in California. The forum contacts are a critical step in the chain of events that led to injury. The ―arise from or relate to‖ requirement lies at the heart of specific jurisdiction by defining the required nexus between the nonresident defendant.  ―Sliding Scale‖ This approach examines the relationship between forum contacts and the litigation along a continuum. As forum contact goes up.

consistently with due process. because the defendant is there in Ohio. Holding: Just the fact that purchases were made in Texas is not enough to sustain general jurisdiction. Courts there found for them and the company appealed. if that was its own local rule or policy. The company had also purchased helicopters from Texas and had sent representatives to Texas for training. After the war. Supreme Court ultimately held that the Ohio courts were not obliged by due process to exercise jurisdiction. Purchasing from the state. as opposed to selling merchandise in the state. its operations had been halted. is generally not a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction. This is a general jurisdiction case. still from Ohio. Supreme Court held that Texas did not have jurisdiction over the corporation because they did not have continuous and systematic business contacts which would give them general in personam jurisdiction. Neither is prohibited from doing so. Supreme Court (1984) General Jurisdiction – First time Supreme Court establishes that there is a difference between specific and general jurisdiction. General Jurisdiction Perkins v. The fact the claim is not related to any event makes virtually no difference. there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. even though it was unrelated to the Ohio activities. The U.  The Supreme Court of the United States held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not compel Ohio to open its courts to such a case. the cause of action did not relate to any incident in Ohio. The president was served with process in Ohio. it held that the activities in Ohio were sufficiently ‗‗continuous and systematic‘‘ so that Ohio could.For a nonresident defendant‘s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction. On the other hand. The president of the company had traveled to Texas to negotiate a contract. Helicopter crashed in Peru killing four Americans who worked for a Peruvian company with Texas connections. (1952) The defendant was a Philippine mining corporation. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. No permanent presence in Texas even though there were contacts. The Ohio Court has jurisdiction over the defendant if it wants. The fact that the defendant was physically present in Ohio is what counts. Holding: There is not general jurisdiction on the basis of continuous and systematic conduct by the defendant.A. This is an example of power based jurisdiction. In this case. S. *Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia. (1) entertain the cause of action if it wished to do so. During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Hall U.S. And we do not have specific jurisdiction through the exercise of a long-arm 14 . The U. the president also supervised the corporation's recovery from the occupation. v.S. The president of the corporation continued to transact company business from Ohio. Relatives of deceased filed suit in Texas even though none of the decedents or survivors were domiciliaries of Texas. or (2) refuse to hear the case.S.

the court held that the defendant's in state advertising activities were "related" contacts because they ultimately led to the plaintiff's injuries.  There is no case where specific jurisdiction has been made out on the concept of "relation to.   Mere purchases."  Page 114 regarding the question of the relatedness of the contacts: "But For" Test: The broadest notion of relatedness is the "but for" test. even if occurring at regular intervals.  If the pleading had alleged pilot error because they were poorly trained--there would be specific jurisdiction. which were suffered on the high seas aboard one of the defendant's cruise ships. the factors to look at to establish minimum contacts are: (1) quantity of the contacts. are not enough to warrant a State‘s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions. Contacts such as those in Shute would not be related under this test. The Michigan court found for the plaintiff and decreed that Ferry owed them money.e. you must satisfy the minimum contacts standard of International Shoe and the claim must "arise out of" or "relate to" those contacts with the forum. where he died. "Proximate Cause" Test: This is a variant of the substantive relevance test. Dissent . which requires a stronger link between the forum activities and the cause of action than a mere "but for" relationship.statute because we do not have sufficient contacts under the 14th Amendment to justify assertion of that special statutory criteria for that in personam jurisdiction. Later. I." The conduct must arise "out of. Ferry was appointed executor and he eventually moved to Utah where he became incompetent and was appointed a guardian.Contact between petition Helicol and the state of Texas are sufficiently ―related to‖ the cause of action to make it fair and reasonable to exercise jurisdiction. because the advertising in the forum had little or no relevance to the defendant's negligence in causing the plaintiff's injuries while on board. Plaintiffs tried to register the judgments in Utah for execution but the 15 . Supreme Court (1913) Decedent was domiciled in Michigan.S. Carnival Cruise Lines. The court held that the "but for" connection between the defendant's activities and the ultimate injury suffered was enough to make the contacts related. Continuance of Jurisdiction Michigan Trust Co. heirs of the decedent petitioned the Michigan court to remove Ferry as executor and to account for balance of the estate. v. the cause of action doesn't have to relate in anyway to the forum. in Shute v. (2) the nature of the contacts and (3) their connection with the cause of action. To get specific jurisdiction. Ferry U. "Substantive Relevance" Test: This would require that the contacts be relevant to the substantive theories in the case before being treated as related. Remember. *Notes*:  In general jurisdiction.

then the court has jurisdiction. or if the party submits to jurisdiction. With quasi in rem 2 there is no final judgment. The defendants and some of the plaintiff were Kentucky residents. allowed defendants to pay money and removed the lien. They do not have jurisdiction over the creditors." The same force is given to the judgment whether the party remains in the jurisdiction or not. but they could not determine 16 . Plaintiff asserts an interest in a thing and seeks to have his interest established against the claim of a designated person or persons 2. * Arkansas had jurisdiction over the land in Arkansas. Defendants avoided service for some while. it is no longer necessary to maintain physical power over the person. require some kind of reasonable notice. Defendants appealed. Plaintiffs sued the defendants for payment in KY. Defendants secured the debt with property in Arkansas. Jurisdiction over "Things" In Rem Jurisdiction: In Rem Jurisdiction: Where a thing is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of a state. especially here where there is a gap of several years. an action may be brought to affect the interests in the thing of all persons in the world. When the power over a person exists and is asserted by service at the beginning of a cause. The issue is not over the property but the claim. Once a judgment has been rendered. The court in Arkansas proceeded entirely upon constructive service on the creditors and determined the rights of the parties. then the fact that one of the parties leaves the jurisdiction does not defeat the jurisdiction of the court. even if one of the parties takes off. The Arkansas Court could release the lien on the land. USSC reversed holding that the Michigan court had continuing jurisdiction as a result of the initial proceeding over the decedent's estate. one defendant brother filed an action in equity in Arkansas to remove the lien from the property in Arkansas. There is a problem with due process because one of the parties seizes another‘s property in order to litigate. Combs: Defendant brothers owed plaintiffs a large sum of money. Once the jurisdiction attaches. It does. however. arguing that the matter had been resolved. The whole administration of the estate is a single proceeding and is subject to the court until it is closed or until the executor distributes all that he receives. In the meantime. Once jurisdiction attaches. the plaintiff can take it to another state for domestication as long as notice is given. Plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant personally and seeks by attachment or garnishment of the thing to apply it to satisfy his claim against the defendant * The property or "res" becomes the flashpoint of the litigation. Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction: 2 types 1. The KY trial court disallowed the defense of res judicata and found for plaintiffs. Combs v. None of the parties were Arkansas residents.Utah court said that the Michigan Court didn't have jurisdiction over Ferry. That is not quasi in rem. Then the brothers brought the Arkansas judgment to Kentucky and offered it as a defense against the proceedings in KY.

Greyhound was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Arizona. The USSC found that even the temporary presence of Harris in Maryland was sufficient to extend jurisdiction over him. Balk: Harris. This is the second type of quasi in rem jurisdiction that we are talking about. the presence of Harris in Maryland. owed Balk. Harris may properly offset his payment to Epstein in satisfying the judgment as to Balk. If Harris had moved permanently to another state. the defendant. That portion of the debt attached by Epstein must be viewed as a partial discharge of the debt owed by Harris to Balk. conferred jurisdiction on the Maryland Court to attach the asset of Balk that he carried. * This rule only applies in those cases where the creditor is given notice of the foreign state attachment so that he might be given opportunity to contest the validity of the debt owed by him to the person attempting the attachment. * A debt owed a creditor is an attachable asset of the creditor that resides in the debtor and valid attachment can be had wherever the court has personal jurisdiction over the debtor. Harris v. 17 . Shaffer v. which he paid. The court had jurisdiction over the res. whether the stock certificates are present or not. Balk then sued harries for the $300 debt. The Maryland Court recognized the debt of Harris to Balk as an asset of Balk that resided in Harris and entered judgment against Harris. and Epstein served a notice of attachment on him and sued for $180 in a Maryland court. The lien secured an underlying obligation over which they could not get jurisdiction. a resident of Maryland. The judgment of the Maryland court was valid. no matter how temporary. * Indebtedness is transitory and moves around wherever the defendant is located. Maryland had in rem jurisdiction over the debt because the debt traveled with Harris. Heitner filed a motion for sequestration of the Delaware property owned by the defendants. Heitner brought a derivative suit against corporation in Delaware to recover damages for actions of the directors that had resulted in suits and criminal contempt fines in Oregon. Harris traveled to Maryland on a temporary trip. Under Delaware law. Balk owed $180 to Epstein. The Arkansas judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit.000 shares of Greyhound stock owned by 19 of the 28 defendants. and both were residents of North Carolina. the Plaintiff $300. which they do. Arkansas court did not have personal jurisdiction over the creditors because there was no service of process. Balk could have sued him there for collection. Since that procedure was observed here. Likewise. The intangible is not related to the controversy between the parties to the litigation. and Harris asserted as partial defense the $180 already paid to Epstein. But no jurisdiction on the underlying note. The NC court ruled that the Maryland court did not have jurisdiction over the intangible asset of Balk and entered judgment against Harris for the full $300. If the laws of Maryland allowed the attachment of an asset within its jurisdiction in satisfaction of a debt. The sequestrator seized 82. Those defendants whose property was seized made special appearances to contest the court's jurisdiction under International Shoe v.the rights of the parties. Heitner: Heitner owned one share of stock in the Greyhound Corporation. the situs of ownership of all Delaware corporations is Delaware. The situs of a debt is not immovably tied to its place of origin. Washington.

Washington test. and a determination in the record by the trial court that they had a finding of jurisdiction would have to be remedied by an appeal. * Note *: If in fact you litigate the jurisdictional issue. A court's record showing facts establishing jurisdiction. The sheriff made a seizure and brought the matter before justices in NJ. See Durfee v Duke. the sheriff produced the court record from NJ and argued that it was bar to the instant proceeding. as this one does. where there is litigation and people appear and there is a record that they have jurisdiction. applying NJ law. These stockholders were not in Delaware. and that basis has been overruled. which will also require that the subject of the dispute deal with the contacts. Because. Competence of Court and Notice Thompson v. the property of people outside of the forum was being seized. This is a collateral attack. The jury determined that the boat was not seized in the waters of Monmouth County. if they had been there. The court must have subject matter jurisdiction. creates only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction which may be rebutted by contradictory evidence. At the instant trial. so Delaware's exercise of jurisdiction over the defendants must meet the International Shoe v. Sheriff asserted that the sloop was seized in the waters of Monmouth County where plaintiff was engaged in raking clams in violation of NJ law. Washington. for the seizure of a sloop and its tackle. the rendering court must have had the requisite jurisdiction. The International Shoe standard has to be superimposed on the in rem. Unsatisfied the other party runs across 18 . The NJ is invalid for lack of jurisdiction. you had better appeal it. The jurisdiction of the rendering court may be challenged by evidence disproving that jurisdiction. Therefore. Whitman: Plaintiff brought suit against the sheriff of Monmouth County. The full faith and credit clause requires a state to recognize and give force only to judgments validly entered in a sister state.The court held that all future exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction must meet the fairness test under International Shoe v. The got a determination of what the boundary was in Nebraska. The owner does not get to attend. NJ. In order for the judgment to be valid. if possible. By attaching the stock here. in accordance with the law of that state. You will not be able to run off to some other jurisdiction and file a lawsuit and collaterally attack the first decision. This the new standard associated with the second part of quasi in rem. In other words. you have to pursue it on appeal--no collateral attack--if you want to follow through. The fact that they make that determination does not speak to the fact that the real party in interest was there and had an opportunity to litigate that issue. Two individuals litigating over the boundary of land. the justices of Monmouth County were w/o jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Delaware had based its exercise of jurisdiction purely on the constructive presence of defendant's property within Delaware. VERY IMPORTANT CASE. Normally. If do not enter an appearance then can collaterally attack the final judgment in another state. they seized the boat. And they make a judgment there. There is no litigation in that first case in which a party came in and argued against that particular proceeding. they would have had in personum jurisdiction over those folks. This case is unique because this is an in rem seizure.

Cannot do this because of full faith and credit.and starts another lawsuit claiming the first state did not have jurisdiction. That accounting would serve as an absolute bar to any action against the trust or trustees for any loss suffered by the beneficiaries. etc. it was permissible to serve VWoA as agent for VWAG. even though it is likely to be ineffective. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. had passed a statute whereby trustees of small trusts might join together into a kind of group administration under a corporate trust company. the corporate trustee was required to publish in a newspaper chosen by the court the names of all the small trusts that were affected by accounting. That was not done here. 19 . VWAG made a limited appearance for the purpose of moving to quash service.: NY. notice by publication was adequate as to those beneficiaries who were unknown to the trustee or difficult to identify. The various beneficiaries of the small trusts would share all proceeds and expenses according to the size of their contribution. VWoA answered saying that it did not design the car in question. For all these reasons. one must pursue that method. The idea was to make the administration of small trusts more efficient. The USSC acknowledged that the state courts had jurisdiction over a trust action even where the beneficiaries were out of state. claiming that the accounting was invalid for lack of notice under the 14th amendment. The fact that the trust was organized and administered by the courts of the forum state alone created such contacts as would pass constitutional muster on the question of jurisdiction. By statute. Schlunk: Plaintiff's parents were killed in an auto accident. The guardian made a special appearance. * Whenever there is a better available way to put person's who have an interest on notice. Plaintiff served process on Volkswagon of America (VWoA). Such notice is adequate and satisfies constitutional requirements. The corporate trustee would be required to periodically make a judicial accounting. Trial court overruled and the NY appellate court affirmed. Should have appealed in the Nebraska. All trust assets would be pooled and administered by the corporate trustee. VWAG argued that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Treaty. notice by publication in a local newspaper might be the only means available to the court. In the instant case. thus avoiding the need for international service of process. and since it was a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. the court appointed an attorney as special guardian of the interests of all persons not appearing who had an interest in the accounting. Plaintiff then amended his complaint and served VWoA as agent for VWAG. BUT there were also known beneficiaries. obviously. Trial court refused the motion. Reversed. whose names and addresses were readily available to the corporate trustee and the court at the time of the accounting. Interested parties might be difficult to find. No other notice of any kind was required. because otherwise such trusts could not take advantage of the benefits of being administered by large corporate trustees. saying that since VWoA was registered to do business in Illinois. like many states. Certified mail is approved here. Mullane v. At the time of the accounting. Such notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise interested parties of he presence of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. arguing that design defects in the car in which they were driving resulted in their death. Personal service. The original trustees had no ownership or controlling interest in the trust properties. The court also acknowledged that constructive notice or other notice that fell short of actual notice was justified under some circumstances. Plaintiff filed suit.

. In this case. moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. the damages were suffered in international waters. and any controversy would be tried in London. citing the choice of forum clause in the contract but the motion was dismissed. Zapata Off-Shore Co. they forwarded it to the German Corp--they were given an opportunity to be heard. but the convention did not specify when international service was required. Where there is overreaching. They had certain expectations as to their liabilities as to dealing with a particular forum and the certainty of the laws there. international service was governed by state law. to tow an oil rig from Louisiana to Italy. do not think that you can just serve that subsidiary and have that be an agent for the principal.but they are two different things. the question of adequate service is governed by the law of the forum. * Remember. So M/S Bremen doesn't overrule Bisso. would have prevailed as a matter of law as a result of the exculpation clause in the contract which is invalid under American Law.. The conferral of jurisdiction by means of a contractual choice of court clause is known as prorogation. would suffer from enforcement of the exculpation clause. Inland Waterways Corp. The USSC overruled the trial courts decision in this case and remanded for further proof on the convenience of litigating in Florida. (adhesion contract) Limitations Imposed by Contract M/S Bremen v.: A German Corp. Limitations on the Exercise of Jurisdiction This chapter deals with situations where states choose not to exercise judicial jurisdiction they undoubtedly have. * Caution*: Just because you have a subsidiary corporation. the USSC says to enforce the agreement. they knew that when they struck their deal.The USSC found that the question of local vs. where the only difference was that they were still in US territorial waters and the court refused to honor the agreement. This case cited Bisso v. Modern decisions usually give effect to private agreements except when they are unfair or unreasonable. the German Corp. or other unfairness intrinsic to the agreement. the German Corp. The convention itself provided that all international service would be governed by the convention. No compelling interest would prohibit enforcement of the choice of forum agreement. (piercing the corporate veil) This case is unique driven factually by the facts that many board members were common to both companies. That allows that negotiation to take place. The main purpose has to do w/ the expectation of the parties. things might be different. contracted with an American Corp. Had the suit been brought in London. Therefore. you have foreign nationals as well as Americans in international waters in a case dealing w/ Admiralty. The rig was damaged in the Gulf of Mexico and the American Corp. they can be set aside. there is a difference in choosing the forum and choosing the law. This may be the result of an agreement between the parties or the fact the court deems itself to be an inconvenient forum. By contract. Usually those things are paired together. 20 . Under those facts. If you have an independent business. without that commonality of directors. The court stopped short of finding that such agreements must always be enforced as written. brought suit in Florida. So the choice of forum here determined the outcome of the case. when the American Corp was initially served. Further. Chapter IV. fraud. etc. A jurisdiction limiting effect of a choice of court clause is known as derogation. or where there can be a showing that some legitimate American public policy would be undermined by enforcing such agreements. The German Corp.. While it is true that the American Corp. would not be liable for any loss sustained by the plaintiff on the trip.

it was an admiralty claim. The court of appeals held that the forum selection clause was unenforceable because it was not freely bargained for. Diehl ignored a provision purporting to give an Italian court exclusive jurisdiction over any action on a ticket for transportation from New Orleans to Italy. maybe even selection of law. identical to the clause in the Shute case. Where individuals are given notice of a forum selection provision in a contract. had agent there. is such a forumselection clause enforceable? Holding: Yes. and the court of appeals' conclusory reference to the record provided no basis to validate the finding of inconvenience either. lower prices. The USSC reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in Shute. and the tickets were issued there. Plaintiff was a Louisiana resident and the defendant a Louisiana Corp. because it was "clearly and palpably unreasonable‖. the court in Caldara v. * Choice of forum agreements have sometimes been denied effect. since that was its principal place of business. 21 . Washington also had subject matter jurisdiction.. Such a clause may be permissible for a number of reasons. On remand. in personum because the defendant had sufficient contacts (they did business there. Carnival Cruise Lines II and notes: In a later case the same year. the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. advertised. a Panamanian Corp. It is appropriate to have these in form contracts as long as there is reasonable notice. The plaintiffs essentially have conceded that they had notice of the provision. with its principal place of business in Miami. passengers on a Carnival Cruise Ship were injured during a storm. Forum selection clauses give in personam jurisdiction not subject matter. etc. Issue: Where individuals are given notice of a forum provision in a contract.). Further. It can't be said that a non-negotiated forum selection clause in a form ticket contract is never enforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining. Absent such notice. v.Carnival Cruise Lines. * Why choose forum selection clauses: you know where the litigation will be brought. and the defendant's Washington contacts were sufficient for the exercise of specific jurisdiction. as well as. In this case. For example. The tickets also constituted the Contract of Passage which contained a forum selection clause in favor of Florida. the plaintiffs were physically and financially unable to pursue litigation in Florida. and a California trial court refused to enforce a forum selection clause in favor of FL.. such a clause in enforceable. she filed suit in Washington. There was a forum selection clause written on the ticket. There is no indication that the defendant had nay bad faith motive for selecting FL as the forum for resolving disputes. Inc. After the plaintiff was injured in a fall when the ship was in international waters. Payment was forwarded to Miami. Florida. including the likelihood that a cruise ship which typically carries passengers from many locales could be subjected to litigation in several different fora. Shute: The plaintiff bought tickets through a local agent in their home state of Washington for a cruise on Carnival Cruise Lines. held: "The forum selection clause is unenforceable as to any particular plaintiff if the trial court determines that such plaintiff did not have sufficient notice of the forum-selection clause prior to entering into the contract for passage. the requisite mutual consent to that contractual term is lacking and no valid contract w/ respect to such clause thus exists. FL is not a "remote alien forum" and this dispute is not essentially a local one inherently more suited to resolution in Washington than in FL. The plaintiffs have not satisfied the heavy burden of proof required to set aside the clause on grounds of inconvenience.

The general rule is that a fraudulent inducement into the jurisdiction will almost always mean the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction.) If in fact there were some legitimate situation in which they came into the jurisdiction and were not induced to do so by the plaintiff. Unless the balance is strongly and clearly in favor of the defendant the court must sustain the plaintiff's choice of forum. Forum Non Conveniens Gulf Oil Corp. The court held that the court properly dismissed on forum non conveniens. It is available in federal and state courts. Gilbert appealed. You cannot serve process by fraud or deceit. At trial. Penn. It would have been prejudicial to the defendant to try this case outside of VA. Brodie: Defendants were New Jersey residents who were involved in an accident in new Jersey in which plaintiffs were injured. there would be no problem. Defendants received a phone call offering them free tickets to a Broadway show if they would answer a questionnaire. In Eichmann they allowed him to be kidnapped to try him. Virginia resident sued the Penn. who mishandled a gasoline shipment causing plaintiff's warehouse to burn down. The USSC agreed that the federal venue statutes would allow plaintiff to bring suit in NY. It is usually raised by a motion to abate or dismiss the action. corp was qualified to do business in NY & Virginia. as soon as you have there body here.* In diversity of citizenship cases. The appellate court reversed. In Tenn. Gilbert brought suit in NY and the court there dismissed noting it was better brought in VA. you have them. that would support these forum selection provisions. The federal courts have no express list of factors that the court must consider when ruling on a motion for forum non conveniens. and after the performance. but there are numerous policy issues that the court may consider. and plaintiff had someone serve them. Defendants attended the show. Fraud. which he asserted was the result of negligence on the part of the Pennsylvania corp. defendants moved to vacate the process which was denied. in NY district court. saying that service was invalid where it was obtained by fraud. A particular venue may not be used to harass the defendant. *Notes*: There has to be notice to satisfy due process. The availability of witness and subject matter is to be considered when more than one court has proper jurisdiction. the federal court will take the state substantive law. (w/ regard to civil cases--in criminal cases. Gilbert (leading case on forum non conveniens): A Virginia resident suffered a loss from fire. This is treated as a general appearance. A statutory extension of forum non conveniens is found in 28 USC 1404 which provides that a federal court that determines that it is not a fair and appropriate place for trial of an action may transfer 22 . Both states had jurisdiction but the acts occurred in VA. Force & Privilege Terlizzi v. You have protection under our statute if you have been subpoenaed to testify in another case. If the court finds that the local forum is a seriously inconvenient place for trial it may either stay or dismiss the action. Plaintiffs were domiciled in NY. In criminal cases the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant is usually held not be impaired by the fact that he was unlawfully extradited or brought in by force. Must have jurisdiction in both places to apply. Because they were not fraudulently drawn into the jurisdiction. Regarding the enforcement of these forum selection agreements. v. Forum non-conveniens is part of the court’s inherent supervisory power over its own jurisdiction. It is up to the court’s discretion. corp. they were served with process by a man who had been sitting behind them. the majority view is that there is a body of federal common law.

the action to another appropriate federal district if the action could have been filed there originally. A transfer under section 1404 has no effect on jurisdiction or choice of law. The court will apply the choice of law rules in effect in the state in which the transferring court was located. This case would not be ruled upon the same way today, because of 28 USC 1404(a), the statutory mandate in the federal courts to transfer cases among their you do not get into forum non conveniens in the federal courts. * There are 2 categories of factors to be applied in forum non conveneins, private factors and public factors. Some of the private interest factors include: * the relative ease of access to sources of proof; *availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; *possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; *and all other practical problems that make the trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive *enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex," "harass," or "oppress" the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Some of the public interest factors include: Factors of public interest also have a place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness also in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. 2. In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 1984: In response to the devastation wreaked by the industrial disaster at the Union Carbide (D) plant in Bhopal, India, the Union of India (P) filed a consolidated lawsuit against the defendant in the US federal court. The plaintiff filed in the US because it believed that it did not have jurisdiction over the defendant (a Connecticut corp.), as the defendant owned a majority of the stock in the corp. that operated the destroyed plant. The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, claiming that India would be the proper place to bring suit. Issue: When another adequate and more convenient forum clearly exists abroad, is there any reason to press the US judiciary to the limits of its capacity? Holding: No. When another adequate and more convenient forum clearly exists abroad, there is no reason to press the US judiciary to the limits of its capacity. The Indian legal system is in a better position to hear the case. The Indian courts have greater access to all the information needed to arrive at a just decision, including witnesses, evidence and a majority of the claimants. Additionally, the costs of litigating this case in the US would put an enormous

burden on American taxpayers. No US interest outweighs the interest of India in applying Indian law to the case. Motion granted. * The doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable only when the forum has judicial jurisdiction over the defendant and the forum is a proper venue. A prerequisite to its invocation, except in extremely unusual circumstances, is an alternative forum. Whether or not to apply the doctrine is within the sound discretion of the trial court. * Plaintiff could sue in US federal court because they submitted to our jurisdiction. When the plaintiff submitted in this case, it didn't matter that the plaintiff had no contacts w/ the US. * One of the prerequisites of a dismissal under forum non conveniens is that there must be another forum that has jurisdiction. So the idea here is to get the case to the forum with the most contacts, the most interest in this particular proceeding. In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 1984 (Case II): The defendants motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the grounds of forum non conveniens was granted with certain conditions conditions, among them being that the defendant agree to satisfy any judgment rendered and upheld on appeal, so long as it complied with "minimal requirements of due process" and that discovery be subject to the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant appealed the imposition of these conditions. Issue: Must conditions imposed pursuant to a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds comply with basic due process and fundamental fairness concerns of the dismissing forum? Holding: Yes. Such conditions must comply with basic due process and fundamental fairness concerns of the dismissing forum. The defendant's consent to the enforceability condition was based in part on the erroneous assumption that the Plaintiff might not be able to enforce a judgment obtained in India against the defendant in the US. Once there has been a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, however, the district court is w/o the authority to monitor the litigation. The court's concerns with due process are adequately addressed in this case by an existing state statute providing for recognition of foreign country money judgments. It was thus error to impose the "enforceability" condition on the dismissal. The second condition requires no reciprocal discovery privileges on the part of the plaintiff. Fundamental fairness requires that unless the Indian courts will sanction mutual discovery pursuant to the federal rules, the parties will be limited to applicable Indian discovery methods. Affirmed as modified. * Also made a condition in this case, unchallenged by the defendant, was the condition that defendant submit to the foreign jurisdiction and waive all statute of limitations defenses. This condition has almost become part and parcel with a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. So long as the court is convinced that the interests of both sides will be respected, such a dismissal will be granted. Due process defenses can be raised in any subsequent action to enforce the judgment in US courts.

Notes and Full Faith and Credit, Multiple suites pg 180-190: Full Faith and Credit is part of the US Constitution. It envisions the ability of parties to come to a conclusion in one state and that decision be transferable to another state where the appropriate jurisdictional basis exists. The first judgment that goes down is entitled to full faith and credit across state lines. If a state refuse to grant FF&C it is an action violating the US constitution. * If I have a forum non conveniens dismissal, it is without prejudice. It has no effect on the later litigation.

* What if the other forum has a defense unknown to this forum that might defeat the claim? Would that be a basis for the court to deny dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens? You have the potential for dismissal on the grounds of prescription. That could be a basis for the forum to decline their ability. It is within the sound discretion of the court whether or not to make this decision to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. * English common law recognizes forum non conveniens as a fairly standard thing. Civil law jurisdictions do not recognize it. In fact, you can see that the Brussels Convention provides that if another court gets the case first, other courts are to decline jurisdiction. * Why do you want a race to judgment? Full faith and credit. You want to choose a forum that you think will be favorable to you. Race in there and get your decision. Then you can use it against any proposed litigation in a less favorable forum. This happens in state courts but not federal courts. Zurik v. Inman - TN adopts Gulf Oil Analysis Holding: Tennessee courts of record can invoke forum non conveniens between different states (NOT BETWEEN DIFFERENT COUNTY WITHIN STATE). Package Express v. Snider Foods – Tennessee courts apply forum non conveniens TN corp sued Mo. corp. Dismissed for forum non conveniens. Factors from Zurik. In re Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Tire Litigation- Tennessee Forum Non Conveniens Case of Mexican litigants bringing suit in Nashville, Tennessee concerning 20 automobile accidents that occurred in Mexico. Review of a trial court's application of forum non conveniens on appeal is limited to whether there has been an abuse of discretion. When determining whether to apply forum non conveniens, a court must first ensure that there is at least one forum other than the forum chosen where the plaintiff may bring his cause of action, and if such a forum is available, the court must then consider a series of public and private factors that guide the court's decision on whether dismissal is appropriate. When determining whether to apply forum non conveniens, the relevant inquiry encompasses the availability of an alternative forum, but not its adequacy, and the plaintiff's ability to bring suit is, by itself, determinative of the issue of availability. If a court finds that the private interests of the litigants favor litigation in another forum, then dismissal of an action on forum nonconveniens grounds is appropriate. If the private factors counsel against dismissal of an action on forum non conveniens grounds, then the court considers various factors involving public interests, and if these factors weigh in favor of the party moving for dismissal, then the court may dismiss the case. The relevant rule in a forum non conveniens analysis is that the application of the laws of another state becomes a factor when it is shown that the laws of the foreign state, applicable to the case, are so materially different from the laws of the forum state that their application would present difficulty to the court. Other Limitations Imposed by the Forum U.S. v. First National City Bank: In connection with a federal grand jury investigation into anti-trust violations, City Bank (D) was served with a subpoena to produce certain customers' records held in its branch in Germany. Defendant refused to honor the subpoena on the grounds that a German Bank Secrecy Act would subject the Bank to civil liability for complying with the subpoena. A federal district court found the defendant in contempt and the defendant appealed.

Mexican law provides that the exclusive remedy will be periodic payments based upon need to the survivors subject to the plaintiff's remarriage or the children reaching majority. Where the person ordered can show substantial hardship in compliance. Since the death occurred in Mexico. The USSC has rejected that argument. The potential civil liability is too speculative to override the great governmental interest in enforcing our antitrust laws. However. This is called dissimilarity and is no longer good law. The TX courts were w/o power to render such a judgment. on its line running from Colorado to Mexico. A lumpsum commulation of the estimated value of such an award is far too speculative to be sanctioned and is prohibited by Mexican statute. Where the action giving rise to the suit occurred outside the forum's jurisdiction. * Unique remedies available in another state or country will support a motion to dismiss where the forum court can't render such judgments. the Mexican statutes were relied upon to create liability. the local law of the accident will control as to liability. performance has been excused in some cases. However. Co. Where the remedy is penal. These statutes provided that support payments in the nature of alimony were the exclusive remedy.Issue: May a person within the jurisdiction of the court be compelled to produce records under his control in a foreign country where production would subject him to possible civil liability in that country? Holding: Yes. Balancing test between the US interests in antitrust law enforcement vs Germany‘s potential for civil liability. Where personal jurisdiction is retained. Both Mexican law and TX law recognize an action for wrongful death. Issue: Where foreign law is used to create liability. Slater was killed while on duty. and the plaintiff must resort to Mexican courts for relief. Slater v. contempt proceedings are available. * Some countries have passed "blocking statutes". The defendant concedes the federal court has the power to order compliance with the subpoena but argues that the power should be limited by the circumstances. and his widow (P) brought suit in a Texas court for wrongful death. only courts of the place of the occurrence may enforce them. a Colorado Corp.: Slater was employed by Mexican National Railroad (D). American courts have followed the alimony analogy and allowed recovery on that basis. 26 . although criminal sanctions remains the strongest defense. must the forum court also award a judgment in accord with the foreign law? Holding: Yes. the court may order the posting of a performance bond. no showing has been made that any public policy of Germany would be violated nor has either the US government or the German government expressed a view on this case. May have swung the other way if Germany was subject to criminal liability. * One of the key elements in ordering an act to be done outside the court's jurisdiction is the ability of the court to control and enforce its order. it would be subject to civil suits for violations of the Act. The TX court was w/o power to grant a remedy in this action.. Mexican National R. It is well settled that such statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that statute. In other cases involving similar facts as the principal case. While production of the records would not impose criminal or governmental sanctions on the defendant. The TX court awarded plaintiff a lump-sum judgment. Further.

Co. states cannot refuse to enforce federal policy. In deciding between competing jurisdictions. When state courts enjoin parallel litigation in state or federal courts of other states. The USSC has not had occasion to determine whether an injunction against suit in another state is entitled to full faith and credit. Defendant asserted as a bar to the action the judgment of a New Mexico court holding defendant not liable to plaintiff's injuries arising out of the accident. joined in the first forum and the balance of convenience appears to be in favor of that action. courts do not.. Iron & Ry. (D) in Alabama as an engineer. the first forum may seek to protect its jurisdiction by enjoining litigation elsewhere. is that it is based on a statute that allows a defendant in a personal injury suit to assume the role of plaintiff in bringing the issue to trial. and a judgment of no liability was rendered in defendant's favor. See Mondou v NY (FELA).. He was injured when a defective locomotive throttle 27 ... A judgment based on the statute must be accorded full faith and credit in the state of TX. the 2nd filed action may be entertained when the first filed action was brought in anticipation of the second: non-application of the first filed rule in these circumstances protects the "real Plaintiff". in his traditional right to choose a forum.: Plaintiff was injured allegedly due to El Paso's (D) negligence.  In federal practice and when the claim arises under federal law. But this is a rule of procedure which is a valid exercise of legislative power. Holding: The major objection to this judgment.An example of when departure from the first filed rule is justified is where forum shopping alone motivated the choice of the situs for the first suit. there can be substantial justification for this type of procedure in ensuring a speedy resolution for the issues while evidence is still fresh.* If the US cannot give the type of remedy requested then the court cannot fashion its own remedy. however. Supreme Court recently revisited the issue and found that an injunction against suit in another state rested on the court's equitable power to restrain a person over whom it has jurisdiction from instituting a suit or proceeding with a suit in a foreign state.. or can be. Usually courts have disregarded the sister state injunction and have permitted the action to proceed. Limitations Imposed by the State of the Transaction Buttron v. The Ill.(EPCA) regarding federal acts the states can’t ignore. violation of the injunction may result in the imposition of penalties in the first state. The injury occurred in the New Mexico territory but the plaintiff brought suit in TX where he resided. as it were. Since it cannot give the remedy asked for. El Paso Northeastern Railway Co.. plaintiff did not appear in the new Mexico trial. The judgment was rendered under a new Mexico law which allowed a potential defendant to file suit against the potential plaintiff to litigate liability. in such cases. Under the Supremacy Clause. as this court perceives it. recognition and enforcement by the second state does not seem to be required. most federal circuits follow a "first filed" rule: "all the issues are. Thus. pretend to direct or control the foreign court. Conversely.However. it should dismiss. Tennessee Coal. Although personally served. it has often been stated that the balancing of convenience should be left to the sound discretion of the trial courts. v... George: Plaintiff was employed by TN Coal. Judgment for defendant was sustained. Testa v Katt. Iron & Railroad Co. but the decree acts solely on the party. While unorthodox. Even if they contradict the state public policy they are going to lose.

Alabama has a statute which provides that an employer is liable for injuries to an employee caused by defective equipment. * The USSC agreed that such statutory provisions are permissible where the nature of the relief granted under the cause of action is tied to the forum in which the cause of action is brought. 4 part test under Compete Auto case: substantial nexus(presence).A. * Some variations on the circumstances in the principal case have occurred where a wrongful death suit is brought in one state based upon the wrongful death statute of a sister state. while the recovery limit is procedural and procedural matters are not entitled to full faith and credit enforcement. A forum selection provision could have an arbitration in it. While the statute creating this cause of action also restricted suits under it to Alabama courts. § 24-2-106. There is a problem with giving full faith and credit to legislative pronouncements.caused the locomotive to run over him. For the rule is well settled that "where the provision for the liability is coupled with a provision for a special remedy. But if either the D or the P have moved since the accident. if a corporation. The statute allows any court in Alabama to hear this type of suit. the jurisdiction thus invoked is not defeated because of the provision of the statute" requiring the suit to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant. * There are many cases where right and remedy are so united that the right cannot be enforced except in the manner and before the tribunal designated by the act. transitory. Transitory action is one that can be brought basically anywhere the defendant can be found. has its principal place of business. JC Penney v National Bank v Johnson Whether JC Penney’s relationship with the state of Tennessee satisfied the substantial nexus clause that is required under the Commerce Clause. Opportunity to Show Cause: 28 . will the requirement that actions under the statute be brought only in local courts be enforceable when the suit is brought elsewhere? Holding: No. This is not a case where the right and the remedy are so united that the remedy cannot be enforced except by a specific court. So long as Georgia is capable of trying the case according to the Alabama statute. * When it is shown that the court in the other jurisdiction observed such conditions. T. full faith and credit requires she do so. Scire Facias. nondiscriminatory and related to services provided by the state. an Alabama court may not be the best venue. Since Georgia was able to try the case. This statute abrogated the common law defenses of an employer. that remedy. Plaintiff brought suit in Georgia under this statute. Issue: Where a transitory cause of action is created by statute. Then the law of another case is being imposed upon a sovereign. This has been justified on the basis that the right created is substantive. fairly apportioned. the judgment in favor of P is affirmed. and that alone. the cause of action is.C. It has been held that the forum state must recognize the cause of action but need not recognize a maximum recovery limit imposed by the same statute. but defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Alabama statute required suits under it to be brought in Alabama courts only and that to allow the suit to be brought elsewhere would deny full faith and credit to the legislative acts of Alabama. must be employed. by the terms of the statute. and that a recovery was permitted after such conditions had been complied with.

A. Short Title: This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. § 26-6-105. the clerk of the court wherein the judgment is filed shall issue a summons to be delivered for service to any person authorized to serve process. "foreign judgment" means any judgment. T. the time for appeal expires. A. § 26-6-103. Full Faith and Credit: (a) A copy of any foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with the acts of congress or the statutes of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any circuit or chancery court of this state. (b) The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of a court of record of this state.C. or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state. § 26-6-101. or that a stay of execution has been granted. (b) If the judgment debtor shows the court of this state any ground upon which enforcement of a judgment of any court of this state would be stayed. § 26-6-106. Enforcement Proceeding Delayed: (a) At the time of the filing of the foreign judgment. otherwise. T.A. T. T. the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's lawyer shall make and file with the clerk of the court an affidavit setting forth the name and last known post office address of the judgment debtor. judgment will be given against the witness and execution issue accordingly. defenses and proceedings for reopening. decree. or the stay of execution expires or is vacated.Upon return of the scire facias issued for the penalty. or staying as a judgment of a court of record of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner. the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period.C. Definitions: As used in this chapter.A. T. Construction of Law: This chapter shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it. § 26-6-104. T.A.C. vacating. T. This person shall serve the summons and return endorsed thereon shall be proof of the time and manner of service. the witness may be relieved by showing sufficient cause for failing to attend.A. (c) No execution or other process for enforcement of a foreign judgment filed hereunder shall issue until thirty (30) days after the date a summons has been served upon the judgment debtor. Appeal or Stay: (a) If the judgment debtor shows the court of this state that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken.A. C.§ 26-6-107. and the judgment creditor.C.C. (c) A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures. Rights of Creditors: The right of a judgment creditor to bring an action to enforce the creditor's judgment instead of proceeding under this chapter remains unimpaired. § 26-6-102. on motion.C. the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded. (b) Promptly upon the filing of the foreign judgment and affidavit. 29 . Service of Process.

the name and address of the person seeking registration and any parent or person acting as a parent who has been awarded custody or visitation in the child-custody determination sought to be registered. including one (1) certified copy. (e) If a timely request for a hearing to contest the validity of the registration is not made. Hinkle v. or (3) The person contesting registration was entitled to notice. with its principal place of business in Crossville. and (2) Serve notice upon the persons named pursuant to subdivision (a)(3) and provide them with an opportunity to contest the registration in accordance with this section. and (3) Except as otherwise provided in § 36-6-224. but notice was not given in accordance with the standards of § 36-6-211. At that hearing. in the proceedings before the court that issued the order for which registration is sought. (d) A person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within twenty (20) days after service of the notice. York went from Cumberland County to Knoxville to testify in the case on behalf of the plaintiff corporation. the registration is confirmed as a matter of law and the person requesting registration and all persons served must be notified of the confirmation. the registering court shall: (1) Cause the determination to be filed as a foreign judgment. Child Custody Determinations.§ 36-6-229. regardless of their form. against Hinkle for a debt. TN. or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under this part. whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing. precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration.C. (c) The notice required by subdivision (b)(2) must state that: (1) A registered determination is enforceable as of the date of the registration in the same manner as a determination issued by a court of this state. Registration: (a) A child-custody determination issued by a court of another state may be registered in this state. (2) A hearing to contest the validity of the registered determination must be requested within twenty (20) days after service of notice. and a statement under penalty of perjury that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person seeking registration the order has not been modified. (b) On receipt of the documents required by subsection (a). he was served with the original summons and a copy of the 30 .. (2) Two (2) copies. (f) Confirmation of a registered order. acting through the defendant. Mr. (2) The child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated. stayed. 1966): York. by sending to the appropriate court in this state: (1) A letter or other document requesting registration.A. York was in the Knox County Courthouse.T. and (3) Failure to contest the registration will result in confirmation of the child-custody determination and preclude further contest of that determination with respect to any matter that could have been asserted. a TN corp. the defendant was an officer of a loan & finance corp. York was there in his official capacity as an officer of the Cumberland Loan & Finance Corporation and that he was in Knox County for no purpose other than in his official capacity to represent the corporation and to testify in the case. The Corp. filed a civil suit in Knox Co. with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement. together with one (1) copy of any accompanying documents and information. It was stipulated that Mr. While Mr. the court shall confirm the registered order unless the person contesting registration establishes that: (1) The issuing court did not have jurisdiction under this part. Cravens ( Tenn. of the determination sought to be registered.

W.C. which was held insufficient by the trial court. and service of process was had on Martin. sec. one Earl Martin was attending a United States Circuit Court in Davidson County.A.W. but the corporation of which he was an officer was a party-litigant. subpoena to testify as a witness only excepted. In the present case it was stipulated that Mr. We see no reason why the exemption should not apply to a suit against the corporation.C. in order to testify on behalf of the corporation. The employer-corporation filed a plea in abatement. The Supreme Court reversed the action of the trial court. a separate suit was begun in the state court against the corporation of which Martin was the secretary. Holding: Yes. at 344. under subpoena before the grand jury in that court. While he was in Davidson County for this purpose. It is provided by statute in this State that actions may be abated by plea of the defendant: (2) Where the process is served upon the defendant while attending his duty at a muster of militia. He was not subpoenaed. It has long been held in Tennessee that while both of these Code sections refer only to witnesses. no writ. App. There. Coke & Land Co. for alleged malicious prosecution in a previous transaction. Chaffin v. parties to suit are exempt as well as witnesses. as well as to a suit against such officer individually while a witness. He is interested in either event. 24--213: During the attendance of any person summoned as a witness. York was immune from service of process under the circumstances shown in the stipulated facts. This class action is based on the manner and method in which Defendants lure customers with very attractive all-inclusive prices for 31 . Ct. process. warrant.declaration in the instant case. The claims were based upon Tennessee Consumer Protection Act violations and fraudulent misrepresentations. It was stipulated that Mr. or decree in any civil cause. Hinkle against Mr. with service of process on its officer. and we hold that Mr. 120 Tenn. and during the time that he is going to and returning from the place of such attendance. York.2d at 969. the suit being filed by Mr. In the case of Sewanee Coal. with service of process upon its officer while a witness. allowing one day for every thirty (30) miles of travel. this Court held that the exemption of a witness from service of process while in attendance as such applies to a suit against a corporation. v. 107 S. or election.120 Tenn. Williams & Co.. T.A. order. 107 S. 968 (1907). shall be served upon him. 339. as well as if it were a suit against the individual. judgment. while in attendance at or going to or coming from the place of suit. s 20--903. It is further provided in T. or a witness or juror. Issue: Whether a corporate officer is immune from service of process while attending court in a county other than that of his residence. pointing out: Jurisdiction can be obtained of the corporation only by service of process on its officers or agents. York was in Knox County solely in his capacity as an officer of a corporation which was plaintiff in a separate action. 1999): The plaintiffs brought a class action against the defendant. who are presumed to be interested in the corporation. York was not in Knox County under subpoena. Norwegian Cruise Line (Tenn.

designated California. Plaintiffs would have us conclude that enforcement of the forum selection clauses would contravene the TCPA and.. The court held that the clause was valid and enforceable based upon the reasoning in Shute and other cases. the public policy underlying the TCPA. Carnival. The Supreme Court has further recognized that parties seeking to have forum selection clauses set aside based upon unreasonableness "should bear a heavy burden of proof.. under federal law. agreement [is] unaffected by fraud. Zapata Off-Shore Co. could the TCPA claims be asserted and litigated in the selected forum? If the answer to answer to either or both of these questions is yes.. First. This goes to the reasonableness test in determining if the forum selection clause is valid. Issue: Whether the forum selection clauses were enforceable? Holding: Yes. 32 . then the substantive rights or benefits established under the TCPA are not limited or waived. and the applicable forum selection clause is enforceable. In order to determine whether Plaintiffs will be able to assert substantially the same rights and seek substantially the same remedies in a selected forum. assess customers with non-existent or artificially inflated Port Charges..In M/S Bremen v. it means that . the forum selection clauses that are applicable to three of the named defendants. [a] forum-selection clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion. The forum selection clause in Norwegian's cruise contract established "Dade County. . and Royal Caribbean. Princess. whether declared by statute or by judicial decision. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims based upon forum selection clauses contained in written cruise contracts... could the same rights and remedies be asserted under the law of the selected forum? Second.. or controversies whatsoever arising from. This qualification does not mean that any time a dispute arising out of a transaction is based upon an allegation of fraud. Norwegian. two questions must be answered. designated Florida.." A contractual choice-of-forum clause should be held unenforceable if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought. In this case. if at all.." . therefore. Florida. The forum selection clause that is applicable to the remaining defendant. Each of these forum selection clauses essentially provided that any and all claims.their cruises and then. as in this case. Alberto-Culver Co. the United States Supreme Court recognized that. The court's decision was based upon the fact that the forum selected in the provision to govern any disputes (Florida in this case) would have enforced the unique provisions of the TN Consumer Protection Act. in addition to the advertised price. disputes. The Court subsequently elaborated upon its fraud reference in Scherk v. Plaintiffs. in a particular forum. wherein the Court stated the following: In Bremen we noted that forum-selection clauses "should be given full effect" when "a freely negotiated private . Rather. forum selection clauses in particular cases can be found to be invalid and unenforceable if they are shown to be unreasonable or unjust under the circumstances. or incident to each cruise contract must be litigated. or if the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching. the clause in unenforceable. in connection with. the TCPA's purpose is not contravened.

This factor has to be supported by facts showing why. Accordingly." and that the clauses are enforceable. knowledgeable. we must presume that the consumer protection laws of Florida and of California are the same as the laws of the state of Tennessee. Moreover. and any other applicable facts. If this case were tried in TN. sued Defendant. Courts of general jurisdiction in TN have inherent power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens as a ground for refusal to exercise jurisdiction over a cause of action arising beyond the boundaries of TN. the court would apply GA law as long as the law of the foreign state wasn't against public policy. we conclude that enforcement of the forum selection clauses will not "contravene a strong public policy. We therefore affirm. 1968): Plaintiff. Inman (Tenn.however. Accordingly. from AL in TN circuit court after a car accident that occurred in GA.) Zurich v. nature and materiality of their testimony. 2) construction and application of foreign laws. Because they have failed to raise these foreign laws. The fact that there are out of state witnesses is not of itself enough to support an application of the doctrine. and 3) out of state witnesses.e. Therefore. reasonable and no fraud or overreaching. The doctrine of forum non conveniens presupposes the court has jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject matter. P sued in TN because he was treated at a Chattanooga Hospital. 33 . We find that the subject forum selection clauses are neither invalid based upon fraud nor unenforceable based upon unreasonableness. we find that enforcement of the forum selection clauses will not limit or waive Plaintiffs' substantive rights and remedies afforded under the TCPA and will not contravene the TCPA's purpose. As such. * Note* This case is good authority for the proposition that forum selection clauses are valid if all the prerequisites are met (i. we find that the subject forum selection clauses do not contravene a strong Tennessee public policy. from GA. The doctrine also presupposes there is at least one forum other than the forum chosen where the P may bring his cause of action. The fact that another state's law are so materially different from the forum state that their application would be difficult or is against public policy would be a factor to consider under forum non convenien doctrine. we find it unnecessary for this Court to ascertain and judicially notice any such laws. we find that the forum selection clauses are enforceable and that the trial court's dismissal was proper. have not raised and averred either Florida's or California's laws. This can be done by giving the names of the witnesses. Three factors supporting the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens: 1) non-residency of the parties. and it is necessary the trial court determine such other forum is available. there is a strong likelihood D will be done an injustice if forced to go to trial in the forum selected by the P. and because the foreign laws are not included in the record on appeal. D attacks jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens. due to out-of-state witnesses.

The defendant in Missouri makes a limited appearance contesting jurisdiction. But it is primarily directed to states. The fact that procedures of the foreign court differ from our own are not alone a proper basis to 34 . Policies Underlying the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment. In this case. This policy is embodied in the doctrine of res judicata. that certain papers were used in evidence against him which would not have been admissible in an American court. all. it was not considered an abuse of discretion for the trial court to rule that the forum selection clause was defeated by the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Guyot: The defendant. an American citizen was sued in France upon a debt. The USSC noted that comity was not entirely a matter of discretion of courtesy. The American defendant argued that he did not owe the debt. where that law is likely to produce a fair an complete hearing of the merits. Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation. The Constitution mandates full faith and credit as to sister states as well as between federal and state fora. that he was not permitted to cross-examine certain witnesses. Package Express Center v. that certain witnesses were allowed to testify though not under oath. nor was it strictly a matter of international law. the judgment of that foreign court should be honored by our own courts. Chancellor found that forum non conveniens was appropriate to apply considering all the factors in the case. Snider Foods: Tennessee Corp. Foreign Judgments Chapter V This chapter will deal with foreign judgments of sister states and other countries. and there is no appearance of fraud. TN based on a forum selection clause in the contract between the two.One. Countries routinely give force to transfers of title. In this country an express constitutional mandate calls for the extraterritorial recognition and enforcement of sister states and federal judgments in the full faith and credit clauses. Where a foreign court conducts itself according to a single rule of law (the same law for a foreigner as for its own citizens). * Notes*: Forum non conveniens requires at least two forums that have jurisdiction. When this is done it has more to do with comity or courtesy. in Greene County. and other determinations by foreign courts. or a combination of these factors could. The trial court executed the French judgment w/o examining the merits of the judgment. There is no obligation under the full faith and credit clause to give credit to judgments of another country. sued a Missouri corp. support an application for the doctrine. The defendant filed an action for forum non conveniens and the Chancellor determined that Missouri had jurisdiction and grants the defendant's motion. divorce. Holding. * This case recites the public and private factors to look at as cited in the Gulf Oil case. Remember. The French plaintiff prevailed and brought the judgment to the US for execution. Hilton v. Not only judgments but legislative enactments as well. and that the French courts examine the merits of American judgments before executing them. Chancellor applied forum non conveniens in contravention to the contract language and Package Express appealed. In cases which do not fall within the constitutional mandate of full faith and credit the American courts have often talked in terms of comity. forum non conveniens is not necessary in federal court system because of the transfer statute. upon proper showing. marriage.

comity would not be extended. TSC Holding: Foreign judgments are subject to same protections and same avenues of attack as domestic. She subsequently returned to court there to have a decree of alimony entered which had been inadvertently omitted from the original judgment. puts this case in a different category. it cannot be relitigated here Recognition and Enforcement in General In Personam Judgments In the state of rendition. for fraud or prejudice. If the question arises in connection with another claim. (3) Issue preclusion: by which issues of fact and perhaps of law actually litigated in the action are conclusively determined in subsequent proceedings in which the same issues arise. an in personum judgment for a sum certain can normally be enforced by a levy of execution against any local property of the defendant. The NJ court granted a decree for $7840 past due alimony plus $1000 attorney fees and ordered future payments to be made at $80 per month. this has commonly been called collateral estoppel. even though the claim may be different. However. (2) Bar: by which a judgment for the defendant extinguishes the original claim. and wife brought the judgment to NY for enforcement there. In that case. then the U. then that judgment is conclusive upon the merits unless there are grounds for impeaching the judgment. the fact that the Republic of France re-examines the merits of other countries. When a citizen of a foreign country brings an action against a US citizen in a US court to enforce a foreign judgment rendered by a court with competent jurisdiction and which followed a form of due process. Lynde v. All in personum judgments also have one or more of the following effects: (1) Merger: by which the plaintiff's original claim (cause of action) is merged in a judgment for a sum certain. so that the original claim is extinguished and a claim on the judgment takes its place. US courts will ordinarily express judgments enforcing foreign judgments in US dollars but they are not precluded from giving judgment in the currency in which the obligation is denominated. will generally grant comity but they are not required to do so. Prerequisites for comity:  The court in the forum had jurisdiction of the cause  The proceedings were regular in nature and followed procedure  Due notice to the parties If we have these three. Note: if jurisdiction has already been litigated in rendering forum. Lynde: Wife (P) obtained a divorce fro husband (D) in NJ.S. German courts have a reluctance to enforce American judgments involving punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering. 35 . Comity is predicated on reciprocity.reopen the merits of the case. Hyde Foreign divorce case. Or lack of opportunity to be heard. except where they expressly have agreed not to do so by treaty. this is sometimes known as direct estoppel. Hyde v. Husband appeared generally to contest the alimony action in NJ. or unless there is a lack of reciprocity on the part of that foreign country as to the effect of US judgments. If the subsequent proceedings are on the same claim. He had no assets in NJ to execute upon. Judgment is then merged into a debt.

Issue: Will the judgment of a sister state's court. that judgment would have been given full faith and credit enforcement in Maine if Emery had sought to enforce it there. once the judgment is enforced in the courts of another state. having valid jurisdiction. Emery v. it would appear the fees arose out of a single transaction which would preclude Emery from splitting his cause of action for the services rendered in the respective states. there is a bar to the relitigation of the claim. a resident of Maine. and the defendant set up as a defense the judgment rendered in the Maine suit. * The error apparently alleged was the failure of the Maine court to render judgment in favor of Emery on that portion of the fees claimed to have been earned in New Hampshire. Has Emery filed suit in New Hampshire and received judgment in the full amount. 36 . * The claim merges into the judgment and when that takes place. But a summary judgment dismissal is a bar. being modifiable. it is res judicata as to the other issues merged in it. the decree for future alimony. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. * When you have a determination of custody. Emery brought suit in Maine to recover the fees owed. be entitled to full faith and credit enforcement in the forum. The services were rendered partly in Maine and partly in new Hampshire. If that judgment was based on errors of law or fact. Enforcement of the NY decree must be by NY procedures. The provisions of the decree requiring the husband to post a bond and to sequester his property and to enjoin disposal thereof are execution procedures not enforceable outside NJ. 28 USCA 1963: applies to judgments in an action for the recovery of money or property. * To be a bar. However. even when that judgment is based on errors of fact or law? Holding: Yes. The cause of action cannot be relitigated in the courts of another state. it was to be dismissal on the merits. A rule 12 motion to dismiss is not on the merits. It could not be enforced directly since the NJ court lacks jurisdiction in NY.Holding: The decree for the lump-sum past due alimony and attorney fees being a final judgment is enforceable in the courts of NY. * A valid judgment rendered in another state cannot be relitigated when enforcement is sought in the courts of a sister state. However. A judgment registered in a second federal district becomes in effect a new F2 judgment subject to the rule of F2. While not stated. it becomes bound to the rules of enforcement and limitation of the second state since it is not a judgment of the second state. Hovey: Emery was a New Hampshire attorney who rendered services for the defendant. The judgment in favor of the defendant in Maine act as a bar to the action in New Hampshire. such errors must be appealed in the state where judgment was rendered. Where a cause of action has been litigated in the courts of a state having jurisdiction over the parties and the cause. So the judgment will be subject to the F2 statute of limitations rather than to that of F1. * The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act means any judgment decree or order of a court of the US or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state. is not a final judgment and is not entitled to full faith and credit in NY. The only defense the defendant can raise is lack of jurisdiction of the rendering court. The defendant set up as a defense a Maine statute prohibiting the recovery of attorney fees in that state by an attorney not licensed there. a judgment thus rendered is entitled to full faith and credit effect in every other state. Emery then brought suit in new Hampshire on the same claim.

a resident of Kentucky. Since no personal jurisdiction was had over the brother (P). The defendant set up as a defense a judgment of an Arkansas court releasing the lien and determining the amount of the debt owed which was then paid to the Arkansas court. The brother (P). Combs v. Although the defendant asserted a breach of warranty defense. as to any issues actually litigated by them and determined in the action. and (3) Is conclusive between parties.: Harnischfeger (P) brought suit in Louisiana to foreclose on a chattel mortgage and promissory note given by Sternberg (D) for the purchase of a dredge. this suit in KY is not barred by either full faith and credit or res judicata. a resident of neither KY or Arkansas. Issue: May a defense asserted by one party in a previous in rem proceeding elsewhere be relitigated in a suit in the forum between the same parties over issues arising out of the same set of facts? Holding: No. Combs: Combs (D). v. Judgments: Section 30: Judgments Based on Jurisdiction to Determine Interests in Things. Modern long-arm statutes have substituted personal jurisdiction for quasi in rem jurisdiction in most instances. Issue: May a court validly adjudicate personal rights of an individual where it can validly exercise only "in rem. Full faith and credit and res judicata effect will be given to the judgment of a sister state only where the court rendering the judgment had competent jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Sternberg Dredging Co. such determination would not be binding w/o personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff.Judgments Based on Jurisdiction Over Things or Over Status Judgments of this sort do not impose a personal obligation upon the defendant and hence. Arkansas had jurisdiction to release the lien on the land within its jurisdiction. are not exportable to another state where no valid personal jurisdiction was had in the original proceeding. in accordance with the rules of issue preclusion. Defendant contends he is not estopped from asserting the same defense in this action that was decided against him in Louisiana. but Harnischfeger (P) contended the Louisiana judgment was res judicata on that issue. Harnischfeger Sales Corp. since that was an in rem proceeding that did 37 . borrowed money from his brother (P). giving a lien on real property in Arkansas as security. Harnischfeger (p) then brought suit in Mississippi w/ personal jurisdiction over the defendant to enforce the balance of the note not satisfied by the Louisiana foreclosure action. brought suit in KY to obtain a judgment of the loan. if the judgment purports to have that effect (traditionally described as "in rem"). Their basic effects in the state of rendition are set forth in the Restatement. Defendant again asserted breach of warranty. as well as in rem." not personal. * The Arkansas court attempted to exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over the plaintiff by its determination of his rights in the debt. Second. Quasi in rem judgments. jurisdiction over property in which he has an interest? Holding: No. or with regard to the named parties. the action was adjudged in rem for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. No personal service was had on the brother (P) in Arkansas. A valid and final judgment in an action based only on jurisdiction to determine interests in a thing: (1) Is conclusive as to those interests with regard to all persons. if the judgment purports to have that effect (traditionally described as "quasi in rem"). Although it could make a determination of the amount owed by the defendant to his brother (plaintiff) incidental to the lien release. cannot be enforced by action in other states. unlike in personum judgments. and (2) Does not bind anyone with respect to a personal liability.

Since Mississippi must afford such a judgment the same effect it would have in Louisiana. ceased his assessment payments in reliance on the terms of the certificate issued to him. That will not happen. One criticism leveled at this decision was that the defendant was forced to either submit to the jurisdiction of the Louisiana court or abandon his property w/o defense. the res judicata estoppel must apply here as well. The forum state must recognize the fundamental law concerning this special type of association and cannot turn the membership certificate into an old line insurance policy. an issue. One of the membership benefits was the right to designate death benefit beneficiaries as long as the member paid a monthly assessment. Judgment for the balance of the notes is awarded to Harnischfeger (p). So there must be mutuality of interests to have this extraterritorial effect. the society (D) refused payment to his beneficiaries (P). even if the certificates of membership was issued in the forum state? Holding: Yes. from one state to another. the defendant attempted to have the judgment reheard on the grounds of fraud. it has repeatedly carved out an exception for suits involving fraternal benefit insurance associations.not bind him personally. the place of the association's domicile. unless the citizen in the 2nd state had no greater interest or right than that of the citizen who existed in the state of the original litigation. He has no knowledge of the litigation that preceded him. that preceding litigation makes a determination of an important right. The society (D) enacted a bylaw which permitted members over 43 years of age to cease payments after 20 years and still hold a death benefit certificate. Upon his death. The Nebraska decision was based on a class suit in which the rights of all the association's (D) members were determined. that affects him. * While in other cases the Supreme Court has taken a rather permissive view of the full faith and credit clause. These cases have been limited to the peculiar nature of these associations and have not been extended to ordinary insurance carriers. Missouri cannot attach to membership rights which were refused by Nebraska. citing a Nebraska Supreme Court decision which had declared the issuance of such certificates to be ultra vires. we would be allowing some other state to diminish the rights of the citizens of our state. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that Bolin's rights were to be determined by Missouri. There are certain types of issues that once determined have extra-territorial effects. 38 . after 20 years. The Miss. Issue: Must a state give full faith and credit to another state's decision defining the rights of membership in a fraternal benefit society. However. When you change it just a tad. This plaintiff is not in litigation. Judgment reversed. This fraternal organization treated all their members exactly alike. Bolin joined the society (D) in Missouri and. it is somewhat of a novelty to have that issue resolved in such a way that citizens of one state had no opportunity to present their claim in another state. it will not be accepted by another state. * Subsequent to this decision. Court refused the rehearing by saying that the same issues of fact and law applied although different labels were attached. Particular Effects Persons Affected Sovereign Camp v. * Notice something about this case. when the rights are different just a tad. Bolin: Sovereign Camp (D) was a fraternal benefit society organized under the laws of Nebraska. not breach of warranty. But it is clear that the previous Louisiana judgment would be res judicata if the present suit had been brought in Louisiana. In this case. not Nebraska law and entered judgment for the beneficiaries (P). in order for this Nebraska decision to preclude someone from Missouri from bringing a claim. All the parties have to be in the same situation.

for the purpose of satisfying creditor and estate tax claims in NY. The defendant asserting NY as the decedent's domicile. In this case. Issue: May an issue of domicile be litigated in one state where that issue has been determined by another state when the party to the second suit was not a party to the first determination? Holding: Yes. The district court dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. The elements of 39 . The Delaware court relitigated the issue of domicile and determined that NY was the decedent's domicile at death. the decedent's domicile was determined to be GA. But a party cannot be bound by a proceeding where the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Riley (P) was named executor of her will and estate in GA. Plaintiff appealed. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is designed to prevent endless litigation over the same issue by the same parties by the expedient of changing jurisdictions. as representative of creditors and the state taxing authorities. Riley v. New York Trust Co.: Kremer (P) filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. having jurisdiction over the res and both parties. * The concept of res judicata in TN is "all claims that were merged or could have been merged. Coca-cola filed a bill in interpleader in Delaware. requested the reregistered shares be forwarded to it.Pay close attention to this case. party to the GA proceeding. Delaware. Since the defendant was not. The Commission referred the charges to the NY state division of human rights. Chemical Construction Corp. and the judgment determining the decedent's domicile to be NY and awarding the stock to the defendant as administrator is affirmed. Issue: Are federal courts required to give state court judgments the same res judicata effect they would give in courts of the state in which they were entered? Holding: Yes." Kremer v. cannot be in privity with any of the parties to the GA proceeding. the dismissal of the action as meritless by the NY court clearly would bar subsequent suits on the same cause of action in NY courts. particularly where the present litigant was not involved in the prior action. and the plaintiff filed a Title VII action in federal court. its state of incorporation. the state agency charged with enforcing the NY law against discrimination. In probate proceedings in GA. (D) named as administrator. The GA probate was an in rem proceeding. was competent to determine domicile de novo.: After the decedent's death. with New York trust co. * Section 94 of the Conflicts Restatement 11 states that the local law of a jurisdiction will determine what parties are bound by a valid judgment rendered by that jurisdiction. and by GA law could not have been. P then requested delivery of reregistered shares of Coca-cola stock from the corporation. A second probate proceeding was opened in NY. to resolve the conflicting claims. contending he was discharged from his job on the basis of illegal discrimination. the question becomes whether the Delaware court was obligated to give full faith and credit to the GA determination of domicile. The NY appellate division affirmed. which rejected them as meritless. and it cannot have extra territorial in personam effect. Since the defendant. it was not bound by that decision. 28 USC 1738 requires federal courts to give the same preclusive res judicata effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the state in which they were entered. contending the NY state court judgment should not bar his federal action because the state court never decided the case on the merits and because Congress intended that federal courts were to be relieved of their usual obligation to grant finality to the state court judgments in cases involving Title VII.

v.a successful employment discrimination claim are virtually identical under state and federal law. Statutes and decisions from a foreign state are not entitled to exactly the same time of full faith & credit. The way to determine is to determine what the state law says the preclusionary effect of the state claim is. But that is not the end result. – BUT SEE – Industrial Commission of Wisconsin v. * This particular case recognizes that an adjudication in state court in most cases can be used as a bar. Also makes a distinction between 40 . even to a federal claim in a federal district court. However. Explicitly Overrules Magnolia. Title VII. McCartin: Holding: An award on Worker‘s Comp benefits in one state will not prevent the injured employee from seeking additional benefits elsewhere if the original award cannot be read to preclude recovery of any other benefits no matter where they are sought. Finding none. In looking at the statute. State court denied relief due to a lack of anti-trust laws in the state and the suit was brought in federal court. It is possible that a state claim could preclude a federal claim even though the state did not have subject matter jurisdiction over it in the first place. *Note*: You cannot have the preclusionary effect on an action where the state court did not have jurisdiction on the claim. * In this case the Court based it’s holding on the statutory requirements found in 28 USC 1738. they ask if there was any part of that statute that preempted states from hearing these types of claims. Here. there is a caveat. Federal court dismissed on res judicata. – AND SEE – Thomas v. If it is not. Washington Gas Light Co. Magnolia Petroleum Co. then that particular adjudication is entitled to full faith and credit. even though it comes from a state court. it is not of constitutional proportions and Congress would be free to limit the preclusive effect through legislation. Marrese v. Hunt: Holding: A final worker's compensation award in one state is entitled to FF&C in another state and prohibits the second state from granting a recovery for the same injury. the settlement agreement between the parties specifically stated P would be able to seek additional benefits in the other state. As a result. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: Plaintiffs sued in IL claiming that D infringed their rights by denying them membership. Because of this. Affirmed. Is this proper? Holding: Since the claim could not properly be litigated under IL law. Even if the court does not have jurisdiction of the federal claim. a strong argument could be made that the requirement that federal courts give res judicata effect to state court judgments is not necessarily grounded in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. the federal court was correct in dismissing the suit. Holding: The FF&C clause should not be construed to preclude successive worker's compensation awards. it may be litigated in the federal court system. look to what state law says regarding the preclusionary effect.

a party must demonstrate that: (1) the issue sought to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the earlier suit.the preclusive value of a decision by an administrative board (Magnolia) and a Court of general jurisdiction (McCartin). Phillips v. Rule requiring that collateral estoppel apply only to issues necessary to resolve previous decision does not mean to preclude collateral estoppel upon findings of more than one set of facts each of which requires a decision in favor of a particular party. LLP v. Tennessee courts are not obligated to give full faith and credit to any judgment of a state held to be violative of Tennessee's public 41 . To successfully invoke collateral estoppel. Issues Affected: What issues are determined by a valid judgment is determined subject to constitutional limitations. Beaty v. Finnel Enrollment in Tennessee of Kentucky lawyer's foreign malicious prosecution judgment against Tennessee client who had filed bar complaint against lawyer based on lawyer's pursuit of fees was not against Tennessee's public policy. as action for rescission and revocation of acceptance and one for breach of warranties are different causes of action. For the collateral estoppel doctrine to apply. (2) the issue sought to be precluded was actually litigated and decided on its merits in the earlier suit. to relieve litigants from the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits. GMC Automobile manufacturer could not successfully plead res judicata in action against it for breach of warranty by buyer of automobile who had previously brought unsuccessful action arising out of same transaction against automobile dealership for rescission and revocation of acceptance. Questions respecting proper beneficiaries under national service life insurance policies are governed by federal law rather than by state divorce law or by state divorce decrees. not merely similar. Boatright Former wife brought action to enforce property settlement agreement incorporated into final divorce decree. Appeals court held that the chancellor correctly enforced the property settlement provision as set out in the divorce decree of the Ohio court. The "collateral estoppel" doctrine bars the same parties or their privies from relitigating in a second suit issues that were actually raised and determined in an earlier suit. Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues between parties or their privies in different causes of action provided resolution of issue was necessary to decision. McGraw The purposes of collateral estoppel are to conserve judicial resources. and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity in the earlier suit to litigate the issue now sought to be precluded. Seiller & Handmaker. relevant Tennessee rule was much broader in scope than the corresponding Kentucky rule which permitted the filing of a malicious prosecution lawsuit against one who files a bar complaint. and to encourage reliance on judicial decisions by preventing inconsistent decisions. even if state supreme court rule prohibited in Tennessee the malicious prosecution claim. Preclusive value of court is much higher. the issue sought to be precluded in the second proceeding must be identical. The party seeking to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of proof. by the local law of the staae where the judgment was rendered. Harrington v. (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or is in privity with a party to the earlier suit. to the issue decided in the first proceeding. (3) the judgment in the earlier suit has become final.

having valid jurisdiction over the person. Mutality of Estoppel A question of increasing importance is the impact of full faith and credit in situation where F-1 and F-2 have different rules with respect to the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment in a later action between a party to the judgment and a stranger seeking to rely on it (offensive collateral estoppel.policy or the Federal Constitution. Tennessee courts apply the lex loci rule to contract causes of action. and the intent of the parties in this regard is to be gathered from the terms of the instruments and all of the attending circumstances. May one state change title in land to another. The first to go to judgment was an action brought in Texas. Absent a contractual choice of law provision. Fall v. may order the owner of real property located elsewhere to convey that property by proper deed. Note: This case does NOT stand for proposition that equity judgment is not entitled to FF&C 42 . Post divorce action to quiet title. Thereafter in a NY action involving different passengers the plaintiffs contended that under principles of collateral estoppel AA was precluded by the Texas judgment from denying that its negligence had caused the accident. That case arose out of a crash in KY of an AA plane in which most of the passengers were killed. Holding: A court of equity. An exception to the lex loci rule that the substantive law of the state in which a contract was executed governs a dispute arising from the contract is made when the contract is to be performed in another state and the parties envision performance in accordance with that state's laws. In re Estate of Davis In context of probate of husband's will. wife petitioned for elective share.) A case in point is Hart v American Airlines Inc. the judiciary may determine public policy in the absence of any constitutional or statutory declaration. Eastin: Washington divorce where the decree awarded Nebraska land and ordered D to convey title to the wife. or with a view to the other state. This order can be enforced through contempt citation. The court in this case did not have valid jurisdiction over the property. Holding: The Court may hold the defendant in contempt for failing to convey the deed but may not directly effect title to real property in other states. Eastin: A court of equity may use contempt power to enforce decree where it does not have jurisdiction over land. A party who invokes the public policy exception to the full faith and credit rule must identify the public policy that is offended by the foreign judgment and has a stern and heavy burden. accordingly. This was the NY rule of CE but not the Texas rule. Although the determination of public policy is primarily a function of the legislature. The court continued that the defendant’s reliance on full faith and credit was misplaced since this was not an action to enforce the Texas judgment and that what was here was NY’s policy determination that one who had his day in court should not be permitted to relitigate the question anew Limitations on Full Faith and Credit Fall v. Defendant deeded land to others and wife filed suit to quiet title to ―her‖ land. The primary consideration to be made in determining whether a contract dispute is to be is governed by the law of the state where the parties envisioned performance rather than by the law of the state where the contract was executed is whether the contract was made in good faith with reference to the law of some other state. homestead. exempt property and support allowance against husband's estate. the substantive law of the state in which the contract was executed governs disputes arising from the contract. Equity decrees are entitled to FFC.

Kennedy pointed out that the home state court would not have enforced this anyway so a complicated analysis was not necessary. He was discharged and filed a suit and it was settled including an injunction against the employee to prohibit him from testifying in any future trials. *Note*: The result in this case might be different today (Per McD) Courts have found that an earlier judgment was not meant to foreclose another state with a compelling interest from acting upon changes in circumstances at a future date. We spent a lot of time on this case. Yarborough: Yarborough‘s daughter who lived in SC with her grandfather sued her father for support payments. He argued that in GA he had paid a lump sum and had complied. He received a Texas WC award but later sued in LA because the benefits were better. Ex-employee of GM testified on behalf of the plaintiff.Restatement says that a valid foreign judgment that orders the doing of an act other than the payment of money or that enjoins the doing of an act will be given the same degree of recognition as any other judgment. He was subpoenaed to testify in MI. it cannot be enforced. Do SC courts have to give FFC to the judgment of the GA court? Holding: The GA decree did release the father and it did comply with GA law.: Case involving products liability concerning a GM vehicle. General Motors Corp. When an injunction interferes with the EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE of a sister state. Magnolia Petroleum Co. on page 287. SCOTUS Holding: Expert may testify without offending FF&C. Baker v. Yarborough: Forum 2 may not alter terms of divorce decree by Forum 1. Hunt: Hunt lived in LA and was injured while working for Magnolia in Texas. a second state is precluded from making a subsequent award. Magnolia appealed. Holding: Once one state makes an award in a workers compensation case. General Motors: Injunction which interferes with exclusive power of sister state cannot be enforced. Yarborough v. Baker v. Trial court ordered it but appeals court reversed. Pay close attention to the notes case. SCOTUS holding: Georgia judgment was entitled to full faith & credit. SC did not have jurisdiction over the Father in this situation. v. Not same parties. This means that such a judgment will be given the same res judicata effect with respect to the persons the subject matter of the action and the issues involved that it has in the state of rendition. Child sued in SC court to increase support ordered by GA. Supreme Court held that one court could not bind another in trying their cases. particularly in the area of support where the parties to the original judgment have changed domiciles. The LA court made an award and deducted the Texas amount. The great majority of cases dealing with the enforcement of equity decrees that order the doing of an act other than the payment of money have involved an order to convey land. Restatement says that a judgment rendered in one state of the US need not be recognized or enforced in a sister state if such recognition or enforcement is not required by the national policy of full faith and credit because it would involve an improper interference with important interests of the sister state. James v. Can’t give Texas Commission full faith and 43 . Railroad. Yarborough v. Court. Company settlement prohibited employee from testifying anywhere in US. He was subpoenaed to testify in a Missouri case. Not res judicata.

Defenses The fact that a court made an error either of fact or of law is not an adequate reason for a failure to recognize the judgment either under full faith and credit or at common law. Holding: In determining the enforceability of a sister state's judgment. Company defended and district court granted a second award and Court of Appeals reversed. . A judgment if not entitled to recognition or enforcement either at common law or under full faith and credit if the rendering court lack jurisdiction or if the defendant was not given reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. the receiving forum must give that judgment the same force and effect it would have in the rendering state. Crouch Ga. The TX court refused enforcement on the ground that no valid service was had. He sustained a back injury in VA and entered into a settlement under the work comp law. of Labor he intended to pursue a claim under DC law too. Holding: Supreme Court overruled Magnolia and held that Full Faith and Credit does not preclude successive workers compensation awards. Texas refused FFC based on its own standards for proper service. not to error or proper service Holder of a CA judgment came to Texas to enforce the judgment. Four Seasons Gardening v. planter sues Tennessee growers under long arm statute & seeks to enforce judgment in Tennessee. Tennessee trial court applies Tennessee long arm statute & dismisses. both subject matter and personal. to render the judgment. 44 . Holding: Tennessee court should have applied Georgia long arm statute. The only legitimate inquiry into the applicability of the judgment the forum may make is to determine if the rendering court had the jurisdiction.: Plaintiff lived in DC and worked for DC company but also worked in VA. Since the plaintiff began this in mere fact that something is termed a judgment by the state of rendition does not entitle it to full faith and credit as such. Adam v. Holding: The CA judgment must be afforded Full Faith and Credit. Reversed. the forum cannot review errors of fact or law leading to the judgment. he must be bound by its procedural rules including service on an attorney as service on the party. Saenger: Adam sued Saenger in CA and on a cross complaint (process served only on attorney) Saenger got a judgment. Thomas v. Commissions that have authority to make full and complete determinations will follow Magnolia. Thus the constitutional protection as denied to a commissioner’s report appraising the value of property for probate purposes even thought he state in which the report was filed denominated it as a judgment and treated it as binding unless appealed from and to a bond given in stay of execution which under the law had the effect of a judgment confessed if forfeited. Nature of the Original Proceedings Adam v. Saenger: Full Faith and Credit review limited to jurisdiction only. not what it would have in the receiving forum. He then notified the Dept. In Tenn the remedy for WC is exclusive. D then sued in Texas to enforce the judgment. If the requisite jurisdiction was present. Washington Gas Light Co. Can’t elect in another state and come to Tenn.

Holding: Last valid judgment determines rights of parties. The earlier decisions were not appealed to the federal court therefore last in time wins. Restatement of the Law : Inconsistent Judgments. As a result the Idaho judgment was the last final judgment. Sunshine Mining Co. Thompson v. They divided the property by agreement ignoring the will. The denial of full faith and credit to the Washington court should have been appealed because it was a constitutional issue. Part of the estate was shares of stock in Sunshine. Both cases had gone to respective Supreme Courts & obtained final judgments. The decisions were opposite in Idaho and Washington. In an action to enforce modifiable support obligation either party may tender and 45 .: Pelkes‘ wife died. Dufee Case. LAST IN TIME APPLIES. A judgment rendered in a state of the US will not be recognized or enforced in sister states if an inconsistent but valid judgment is subsequently rendered in another action between the parties and if the earlier judgment is superseded by the later judgment under the local law of the state where the later judgment was rendered. Smith – Last valid judgment in time prevails Will case in two states. Last in Time Applies. suit to enforce the judgment may be brought in another state. Idaho determined that Washington did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the estate. Usually the courts of the state in which enforcement of the judgment is sought will either stay their judgment or stay execution thereof pending the determination of the appeal. Will was probated in Washington. In short the issue was litigated in two courts and the question ultimately becomes. Lynde v. Barber: Wife sued husband in Tennessee on a North Carolina alimony decree. Quiet title case in Nebraska was res judicata on Missouri. leaving the estate to him and his daughter. Whitman: Notes. Restatement of the Law : Vacated Judgment.First Tennessee Bank v. which judgment is the effective one. Tennessee court found that the North Carolina judgment was still modifiable and not a final judgment so Tennessee did not have to give Full Faith and Credit. Usually in the US the rule is that if appellate proceedings do not by the local law of the state of rendition vacate the judgment. Later the stock became valuable Daughter sued father in Idaho claiming one half the stock and opened the probate proceedings in Washington to replace Pelkes as administrator. Baldwin Case: A decision of a state court in a proceeding begun by a motion to set aside a judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the parties is res judicata and is entitled to full faith and credit in a federal court where the defeated movant sought an injunction against enforcement of the judgment of the state court. He stopped paying after 12 years and had not paid for 8. Lynde: Barber v. Treinies v. Colby Case: The divorce decree was not given full faith and credit in Maryland but was still valid in Nevada. Foreign created alimony and support obligations are enforceable in this state. A judgment rendered in a state of the US will not be recognized or enforced in sister states if an inconsistent but valid judgment is subsequently rendered in another action between the parties and if the earlier judgment is superseded by the later judgment under the local law of the state where the later judgment was rendered. Holding: In this case the latter judgment was held to be the one given full faith and credit in this case. Restatement of the Law: Inconsistent judgments.

even if it was not ―final‖ in North Carolina. Alleges fraud in moving these funds. The defense of fraud is capable of being raised in enforcement. UIFSA applies in some cases. 46 . Nature of the Original Cause of Action Huntington v. Levin promised not to pursue if Gladstein would accept merchandise. then transferred his security holdings in a Maryland corporation into trust for his wife and 3 daughters. therefore so can North Carolina. and should not be enforced outside the state. Filed suit in Maryland to get at these assets. Most states follow this approach with respect to foreign alimony decrees that are subject to modification in the state of rendition.litigate any plea for modification that could be presented to the courts of the state where the alimony or support decree was originally rendered. A NY statute held an officer liable on a claim if he falsely certified. the court determined that defendant would be able to enjoin enforcement of the judgment of the law court through the equity powers of the chancery court in Maryland on the basis of fraud. Past due accrued installments that are no longer modifiable under the law are final. Gladstein alleged fraud when Levin tried to enforce in NC. The judgment is allowed the same credit it would receive in the rendering forum. Justice Jackson says these are entitled to full faith and credit regardless of how they are categorized. The SCOTUS has never ruled on this issue of installments of alimony that have not yet accrued in the extremely rare situation where these installments are not subject to modification in the state of rendition. Light Case. FFC requires that judgment be given the same effect in F2 as F1. Full Faith and credit is not constitutionally required for future installments. Plaintiff loaned $100. Law and equity merge. Gladstein: Gladstein tried to return merchandise purchased from Levin in Maryland. If they enjoined in Maryland then they could in NC. Worthley v. Alleges that the NY statute is penal. Holding: The California Court held that it did not have to give FFC but that it chose to. While there he was served process and Levin refused to accept the goods. not civil. Levin v. This is the law now. Worthley: Wife sued in California to recover on a New Jersey decree which was both prospectively and retroactively modifiable. In this case. Policy considerations argue strongly that such decrees for past and future installments of alimony be entitled to full faith and credit. There is always the remedy of injunction against enforcement the remedy is available in the state. North Carolina can hear the case. The finality ought not to be a requirement or relevant inquiry under Full Faith and Credit.000. Holding: The North Carolina judgment was entitled to Full Faith and Credit. (Receiving state will use its procedural laws but sending state‘s substantive laws). If the decree is not made retroactively modifiable it must be given full faith and credit according to this case. Full Faith and Credit requires that it be given the same effect in the second as in the first. In Maryland it was a remedy. After the NY corporation became insolvent got a New York judgment against . UIFSA may apply to some alimony. Gladstein agreed and Levin continued anyway and got a default judgment. Atrill: This was the case of the corporate officer who falsely certified that the company had received all its pledged capital. Holding: Since a judgment obtained by fraud is subject to being set aside in one forum it should be impeachable in the second.

Since this statute was not this did not apply. Once revived in Florida the plaintiff would have 5 years to enforce in Georgia. If there is a penalty(punishment). Judgments have a life. Conway: Watkins gets a $25K judgment against Conway in a Florida court and sought to have it enforced in Georgia. 47 . Plaintiff sued then in Missouri and received a judgment and then took it back to Mississippi to enforce. but Georgia law precluded enforcement of judgment not rendered within five years. Lum: The parties engaged in a gambling transaction in Mississippi and the plaintiff sued to collect his money. all of which are equally concerned in the question and equally on both sides. The Louisiana judgment had recognized the Canadian judgment.Holding: This is not a penal statute but merely one to grant a private redress to corporate creditors. Is the law to punish(penal) or address a private remedy? The US Supreme Court has never decided whether sister states money judgments on penal claims are entitled to full faith and credit. In this case the Missouri court no doubt supposed that the award was binding by the law of Mississippi. There is a body of law which holds that a state does not have to give Full Faith and Credit to a penal judgment. The court dismissed based on the fact that it was against public policy. It need not give full faith and credit to a sister state judgment enforcing the judgement of a foreign country. No Missouri statute of limitations is tendered to cut off a cause of action based on judgments of that vintage. Could go back to Florida and renew the judgment and then go to Georgia. Watkins v. Even if your public policy is violated. Because the plaintiff may revive the judgment in Florida so long as the statute has not run then it does not discriminate against foreign judgments. Waited five years and a day and Georgia court granted summary judgment. The date is based on the last date of revival in the initial states. since he held the judgment. McElmoyle held it consistent with full faith and credit for F-2 to refuse to enforce an F-1 judgment on the ground that suit was barred under the F-2 statute of limitations applicable to judgments even though the judgment would still have been enforceable in F-1. Does this violate Full Faith and Credit? Are domestic judgments treated differently than foreign? Holding: No. Holding: Mississippi must give Full Faith and Credit. Milwaukee County Case: A sister state judgment for taxes must be enforced under full faith and credit. held that although a Texas court would enforce a Canadian judgment under the UFMJRA it would not register a Louisiana judgment under the UEFJA. the state still must give it full faith and credit. Union National Bank Case: In a suit in Missouri to enforce a Colorado judgment obtained in 1927 and revived in 1945 in accordance with the Colorado practice on personal service upon the defendant in Missouri. Reading and Bates construction Co. If contempt is to punish it is criminal. Must Mississippi give FFC to something that is against public policy. Fauntleroy v. Titus Case. even though he might no have been the real party in interest if he had sued in Ohio on the original cause of action. Civil vs Criminal Contempt is an example of this. The Ohio court must recognize the judgment creditor as the real party in interest. Public policy is not a defense to a suit on a sister state‘s judgment. In this case the court says it is the 1945 Colorado judgment that claims full faith and credit in Missouri. The validity of its judgment even in Mississippi is as we believe the result of the Constitution as it always has been understood and is not a matter to arouse the susceptibilities of the states. Case. If it was mistaken it made a natural mistake. the other state will not enforce it under full faith and credit.

Loyal Order of Moose: Kenny obtained judgment in Alabama for wrongful death. appealed the divorce. as to be offensive to Tenn. Foreign Country Judgments As of 2000 the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act had been adopted in 29 states. Tennessee Courts do not have to give comity or effect to a foreign divorce but may choose to. The referee in this case. 48 .Francis v. public policy. Hyde v. And where a second judgment has been rendered upon the first. discharge of the obligation created by either of these judgments in one of the foregoing ways will also operate to extinguish that created by the other. The judgment was obtained in NY and attempted to be enforced in Mass. Francis Attempt to enforce NC judgment for alienation of affection. Hyde: Couple got a divorce in the Dominican Republic. Supreme Lodge of the World. When he went to Illinois they refused based on an IL statute which prohibited entertaining wrongful death suits occurring outside the state and the ILSC affirmed. it is not such a violation of public policy. A question that remains relatively unexplored by the courts is the extent to which a foreign country judgment will be given a lesser res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in this country than that to which a sister state judgment would be entitled under full faith and credit. Must give FFC. Assuming the second court had jurisdiction its judgment was a valid exercise of judicial power and remains res judicata of the issues involved despite the reversal of the other. Does IL have to enforce? Holding: Yes. successive judgments and reversal of earlier judgments. Anglo American Provision Co Case: Suit by a foreign corporation on a foreign judgment against a foreign corporation. These are payment or other discharge. Matters Subsequent to F-1 Judgment. Two years later they file in Chancery Court in Shelby County. Our Supreme Court held that this divorce did not violate Tennessee public policy and upheld the divorce. Payment releases and accord and satisfaction are of course valid defenses to the enforcement of a judgment. Illinois must give Full Faith and Credit because it attempts to close Illinois court to enforcement of valid judgment rendered by sister states. The court stated that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the case in Mass since Mass law did not allow suit between spouses. Judgments‘ effectiveness as an enforceable obligation can be affected or destroyed by events which take place thereafter. does not recognize tort as such any more. A second judgment can be handed down in a suit brought to enforce the first judgment or on the underlying cause of action or where the first judgment was for the defendant and constituted a bar to the prosecution of he second action or where under the principles of collateral estoppel the first judgment has already determined one or more of the relevant issues involved. Tennessee Cases: 1. Lack of a Competent Court Kenney v. Holding: Although Tenn. TN no longer recognizes this tort as a cause of action.

Trial judge holds that there was not a valid judgment based on the Tennessee long arm statute and dismisses the suit. it cannot be relitigated here. The 49 . Therefore. Under Mississippi law. 2. The Georgia resident sued the Tennessee growers under the Georgia Long Arm Statute and then sent the judgment to Tennessee for collection. First Tennessee Bank v. As a result. Section 1983 suit and a Tennessee declaratory judgment as to whether the commissioners were acting on the county‘s business as far as not paying on the policy. The issues must be identical to estop the second suit. Failure to get this issue before the federal court gives rise to this. When the bank realized this. When conflicting judgments are entered in two states. The whole crux of the dispute was who was going to pay the taxes on the land. 11. Sunshine Mining case is valid. it asked Mississippi to transfer the case to Arkansas. 8. Last In Time Rule Applies. The case was reversed. Note: if jurisdiction has already been litigated in rendering forum. the bank ultimately ends up paying out $200.000 because of not thinking the jurisdictional issues through. First TN Bank was the executor of a will which had both Mississippi and Arkansas involved. The trees die and the Georgia resident wants a refund. the judgment must be given Full Faith and Credit in Tennessee. which is no longer recognized in Tennessee. each of which would otherwise be entitled to full faith and credit in the federal court. Holding: Although Tennessee no longer recognizes the tort of alienation of affection. Holding: Last valid judgment determines rights of parties. Wills case in two separate states. False arrest case involving a school employee. Harrington v Boatwright 7. Both cases had gone to respective state Supreme Courts and obtained final judgments. Holding: The Tennessee court should have applied the Georgia Long Arm statute. the relatives who get the land get it free and clear of taxes since those are paid out of other proceeds. Francis v. this late in time rule is based not only upon principles of comity and the need for finality but upon the obligation of the litigants toe exercise due diligence in the full and forthright presentation of their controversy. Four Seasons Gardening v. Even a wrong decision receives full faith and credit. She sued the county and the insurance company wanted out since the commissioners were not acting on behalf of the county‘s business. Smith: Last valid judgment in time prevails. The issue of public policy comes up but the bottom line is that we still have to give the NC judgment Full Faith and Credit. Home Insurance Co. v Leinart (Phillips): Collateral Estoppel.Holding: Foreign judgments are subject to same protections and same avenues of attack as domestic. Francis: This was an attempt to enforce in Tennessee a judgment out of a North Carolina court for the tort of alienation of affection. Ultimately we have two actions by two courts in two states going on simultaneously. it is not such a violation of public policy as to be offensive to Tennessee public policy. it is the second judgment which must control. Crouch: This is a default judgment obtained in Georgia against a citizen of Warren County over some trees sold to a Georgia resident from a Warren county nursery. but the court refused.

Dickerson v. 12. you must have: (1) the same parties. but not necessarily on the business of the county. and his wife filed an action to recover in tort from landowners. The reinsurance contract was executed in Mexico. The constraints and compulsions that may literally override state court conflicts policies flow from the US constitution directly or indirectly. An Equal Protection argument probably would allow one to bring a claim in a sister state now. The previous determination must have been necessary to the decision in the first case. . Due process requires fundamental fairness thus if there is no reasonable relationship between the forum and the parties or cause of action application of forum law would be fundamentally unfair. At the time the policy was issued and until after the loss of the tugboat. A worker digging a ditch for a sewer line was killed. defendant and defendant‘s insurance company were all Wisconsin residents. Home Insurance Co a NY corporation reinsured by contract with the Mexican insurance company for part of the risk it had assumed on the tugboat. Decedent plaintiff administrator of decedent‘s estate. More than a year after the loss of the tugboat by fire P brought suit in a Texas court to 50 . Wisconsin has a statute that denies Wisconsin courts jurisdiction to sit on wrongful death cases occurred outside the state. However the 1983 determination was not necessarily involving collateral estoppel. (2) identical issues. Therefore if all the other contacts are with another state or states the forum cannot constitutionally refuse to make reference to the appropriate foreign law. THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTITUTION Chapter VI The bulk of the course is devoted to problems in choice of law. Godfrey: Tennessee‘s narrow interpretation of collateral estoppel. First is the supremacy clause compelling state law to give way to the US constitution. we have a claim. In addition there are controls exerted by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (b) The issue‘s determination was necessary to the judgment. We do not have a judgment here. Home Insurance Co v Dick Dick a citizen of Texas residing in Mexico purchased a fire insurance policy from a Mexican insurance company to cover his tugboat operated in Mexican waters. Hughes v Fetter. Holding: Collateral Estoppel only applies when specific issues are identical from one case to the other. Decedent was killed in an automobile accident in Illinois. P resided in Mexico although his permanent residence was in Texas. and. and (3) the resolution of the issue must have been necessary to the prior determination. P paid his premiums in Mexico and any loss sustained was payable in the city of Mexico in current funds of the US or Mexico or their equivalent elsewhere. Collateral Estoppel: (a) Determined in a prior suit between the same parties. This case involved a Workers‘ Compensation claim. The asserting party has the burden of proof. The public policy argument Choice Of Law It is a violation of the 14th amendment due process clause for the forum to apply its own law when the only contact it has with the problem being litigated is that it is the forum. Holding: In order for collateral estoppel to apply in Tennessee. the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clauses. A claim based upon a different state law. Holding: These parties were entitled to bring the claim in Wisconsin. We must give full faith and credit to a sister state statutory basis of a claim.Commissioners WERE acting under color of law.

John Hancock Mutual Life insurance Co v Yates: Suit upon a life insurance policy. Even though SD had many contacts with the transaction the SD court must apply the law of the state of incorporation cause this was a fraternal benefit association case and these cases required uniformity. Following the insured‘s death his widow moved to Georgia and brought suit on the policy. Holding: Justice Stone said the probability is slight that injured workmen once returned to California would be able to retrace their steps to Alaska. The provision was valid under the law of TN. A Miss statute provided all contracts of insurance on property lives or interests shall be deemed to be made therein. The defalcation which was the subject of the action occurred in Miss. A state may vary the terms of a contract made within its borders or to be performed there. Full faith and credit required that S D recognized the law of the state where the fraternal benefit association was incorporated stated the court. The Supreme Court stated that a state may limit or prohibit the making of certain contracts within its own territory but it cannot extend the effect of its laws beyond its borders so as to destroy or impair the rights of citizens of other states. Texas applied its statute and found for P. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia courts had denied full faith and credit to the laws of NY and there was no occurrence nothing done to which the law of Georgia could apply. The SC reversed.recover on the reinsurance agreement. Alaska Packers Association v Industrial Accident Commission of California. An action was brought in Miss on a fidelity bond covering the insured‘s employees in any position and anywhere they worked of course including Miss. an additional statute stated that any provision in a contract limiting the time for enforcing rights there under was void. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v Delta & Pine Land Co. The courts of Miss applied the Miss statutes and gave judgment for the plaintiff. which had been applied for and issued in NY. The SD statute of limitations was six years. Texas had a statue that required that such clause in a contract could not be shorter than two years. She recovered judgment by application of the Georgia rule that a false statement in an insurance policy is not material if the agent were aware. Under the law of NY this false statement constituted a material misrepresentation that voided the policy. The employer attacked the award but the Supreme Court upheld. Order of United Commercial Travelers v Wolfe Wolfe an Ohio citizen sued fraternal benefit society incorporation in Ohio to recover benefits claimed to have arisen under the constitution of that society as a result of he death of an insured member who had been issued a policy in South Dakota and who was a citizen of South Dakota during his membership. In his insurance application the insured stated that he had not recently been under medical care. California had legitimate public 51 . The employee was injured in Alaska and on his return to California had sought an award under that state compensation act and was granted it. The SD court recognized its own state contra to D's constitution and rendered judgment in favor of P. A nonresident alien executed in California a written contract of employment under which he agreed to work for his employer in Alaska during ht salmon canning season. The defendant‘ constitution required that actions be brought within six months. The bond was issued in TN. The insurance policy contained a clause that required that suit be brought within a year of the loss. Jurisdiction was asserted in rem through garnishment by ancillary writs issued against D. The insured was NY domiciliary who was being treated for cancer at the time. or if the forum state has some other contact with the transaction but the only connection here is Ps citizenship in Texas. The contract recited that the employee had elected to be bound by the Alaska WC law. Holding: Application of Texas law according to the court violated the 14 th amendment due process because there was not sufficient contacts between the forum and the subject matter of the case.

P‘s 52 . The court eventually found that Florida had sufficient contacts with the case to allow application of its law even though the case involved the validity of a contract provision entered in a foreign state. an employee of Lanza‘s subcontractor was injured while working in Arkansas. Holding: Justice Stone said that full faith and credit does not require the forum state to apply another state‘s laws if it finds them obnoxious to the forum law‘s policy. P and his employer were residents of Missouri. P moved to Florida where some of his property was destroyed. Only in the interest of Alaska is superior to that of California is there rational basis for denying to the courts of California the right to apply the laws of their own state. the state where the employment contract was entered into. Unaware of any cause of action available in Arkansas. Clay v Sun Insurance Office Clay P while a resident of Ill purchased a contract of insurance from a British company giving worldwide coverage of all risks of loss to plaintiff‘s personal property and requiring that a suit for loss be brought within one year after discovery. Carroll v Lanza Carroll. The court stated that the state where a personal injury occurs has sufficient interest in the case so that full faith and credit will not be violated if that state chooses not to enforce the foreign exclusive remedy statute. Arkansas does not have to limit P‘s remedies to those arising under Missouri law. If must be state action. Florida law could constitutionally be applied despite the contract‘s original contacts with Ill. Florida made contractual statutes of limitation void if shorter than the state‘s own five year limit. You have to have a procedure in which those rights are protected or there is an opportunity to litigate that. but the court of appeals reversed on the basis of full faith and credit. Allstate Insurance Co v Hague Hague‘s husband was killed in a motorcycle accident in Wisconsin. The conflict is resolved by appraising the governmental interests of each jurisdiction and turning the scale of decision according tot heir weight. Pacific Employers Insurance Co v Industrial The issue is whether the full faith and credit which the constitution requires to be given to a Mass workmen‘s compensation statute precludes California from applying its own workmen‘s compensation act in the case of an injury suffered by a Mass employee of a mass employer while in California in the course of his employment. which also stated that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy available under employment contracts formed in Missouri. P received workers‘ compensation under Missouri law. Look to see if you have got action that deprives the party of the protected interest. P. The California court found that it would be obnoxious to the policy of the California act to deny persons who had been injured in their state the right to apply for compensation. P her husband and the operators of both vehicles were all Wisconsin residents at the time of the accident. The presence of the insured‘s residence there at the time of loss along with the insurer‘s knowledge provided Florida with ample contacts permitting application of its law. If you have a due process claim you must: Look to see if there is a protected interest.interests in controlling and regulating their employer employee relationship. P later recovered damages from federal court in Arkansas. Three members of the Supreme Court went on record as willing to let Florida apply its own law but the case was remanded to the court of appeals pending resolution of local law questions by the Florida Supreme Court.

brought a class action against P in Kansas state court to recover interest on delayed royalty payments. Rs recovered in both the trial court and the state supreme court. v. Kansas‘ lack of interest in claims unrelated to that state and the substantive conflict with jurisdictions such as Texas caused the court to conclude that Kansas did not have significant contact or aggregation of contacts to Rs claims creating state interests in order to ensure that choice of Kansas law was not arbitrary or unfair. Unreasonable Discrimination Privileges and Immunities 53 .‖ State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Minn was found by the court to have sufficient contacts to apply its own law.000 worth of coverage instead of $15. Allstate argued that Wisconsin law which prohibited stacking applied because the policy was delivered in Wisconsin. The court basically sets standard that any punitive damage award that is greater than a single digit ratio to the compensatory award will not be upheld. The court found that the due process clause of the 14th amendment did not prevent Kansas from adjudicating claims of all the respondents. the accident occurred in Wisconsin and all parties were Wisconsin residents. an opportunity to appear in person or by counsel. They also found that the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the constitution did prohibit the application of Kansas law to all of the transactions between P and the Rs. Rs interests were protected.000 royalty owners who reside throughout the US and foreign countries. the Court held that ―Nevada‘s interest in protecting its citizens from injurious intentional torts and bad faith acts committed by sister states‘ government employees‖ should be accorded greater weight ―than California‘s policy favoring complete immunity for its taxation agency.husband had been employed in Minn for fifteen years and after the accident P moved to Minn where the Minn registrar of probate appointed P personal representative of her husband‘s estate. The court affirms the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court. A state in order to constitutionally apply its own law when there is a choice of law must have a significant contact or a significant aggregation of contacts creating state interests. Campbell Held that punitive damages award was excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Hyatt Whether the Nevada Supreme Court‘s refusal to extend full faith and credit to California‘s statute immunizing its tax collection agency from suits violates Article IV. Rs here were notified by mail invited to attend in person or through counsel and had the opportunity to opt out of the action by returning a request for exclusions. P petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari regarding both jurisdictional and choice of law claims.000. § 1 of the Constitution. During the 1970s P produced or purchased natural gas from land leased in 11 states and sold its product throughout the country. Due process requires that class plaintiffs be given notice of the action. P brought this action in a Minn court seeking a declaration that the decedent‘s three insurance policies should be stacked to provide for $45. Respondents 28. adequate representation and an opportunity to opt into the class. Kansas law differs in material aspects from the laws of other states. Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts P is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma.

But a number of state courts today are willing to entertain an action brought by another state to collect taxes stressing reciprocity. A penal law is one in which a penalty is awarded to the state as compensation for some public wrong as distinguished from redress for private wrongs. under what circumstances should the court or other adjudicating agency reject that law? If the forum rejects the applicable law should it dismiss the case without deciding the merits?  When and how should the forum take notice of foreign law?  When is choice of alw analysis unnecessary because the issue is procedural?  When should the forum refer to the choice of law rules of another jurisdiction? Public Policy General rule: The first restatement provided that the forum state was not required to entertain actions in its courts that were founded on foreign causes of actions that were contrary to its strong public policy. good morals or deep rooted tradition of the local jurisdiction. Dissimilarity of laws is immaterial. The second restatement continues the prohibition against the forum’s enforcement of foreign law contrary to its own strong public policy. Some courts have refused on grounds that they violate local public policy. P took and passed the exam and requested a dispensation from the residency requirement.Supreme Court of New Hampshire v Piper Petitioner Piper applied to take the NH bar examination and indicated her intention to become a NH resident since the state had a residency requirement for admission to the bar. The rule has a narrow application and should not be used unless it violates a fundamental principle of justice. Revenue laws These were traditionally treated the same as those arising under penal laws. Thus forum courts generally permit recovery on debts arising from gambling activities that were legal where performed even though had such activities taken place in the forum they would have been criminal acts. Government seizure Threshold Problems of the Forum in Choice of Law CHAPTER VII This chapter focus on four problems:  When choice of law analysis selects foreign law. Courts today are not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right unless to enforce it would violate some fundamental principle of justice. P was denied. The restatement continues the prohibition against the enforcement of foreign penal laws and the distinction between punishment for public wrongs and compensation for private injuries. The court found that the rules of NH violated the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. Admitting or Rejecting the Action or Defense Loucks v Standard Oil Co 54 . This clause was intended to create a national economic union that has as a benefit the opportunity for the citizens of one state to do business in another state on terms of substantial equity. Penal laws Traditional approach is the forum refused to enforce claims arising under the penal laws of another state.

However the fact that the law of the forum is dissimilar to those of the foreign state does not necessarily mean that the public policy defense is available. Holzer v Dutsche An employment contract was entered into in Germany by a German plaintiff and the defendant German Corporation to be performed in Germany and other locations outside the Forum State. Wife and husband were NY residents. The court held that the local public policy against spouses suing each other in tort barred the suit by the wife against her husband. A defense available under German law can be used in the New York court even though the result may violate New York public policy. Merz v Mertz Wife was inured in Connecticut while a passenger in an auto owned and driven by her husband. The courts of a state are not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right at the pleasure of the judges. The court found: the law of the state of NY attaches to marital status a reciprocal disability that precludes a suit by one spouse against the other for personal injuries. The gambling debts were valid under Puerto Rican law but the contracts involved would not have been valid under NY law. D argues that the Mass statute was penal and the universal rule is that the courts of one jurisdiction do not enforce the penal laws of another dissimilar forum such as NY law and that the court should dismiss on grounds of public policy. It recognizes the wrong but denies a remedy and the disability to sue cannot be removed by the law of another state. P brings an action in NY for wrongful death. Public policy will not preclude local enforcement of foreign gambling debts. Puerto Rican law would be applied and plaintiff may recover. Conn allowed interspousal suits for tort damages while NY did not. The court adopted a liberal view towards public policy as a defense. The Massachusetts statute provided for recovery the amount to be determined in accordance with D‘s culpability. When considering ht laws of a foreign nation some states will require pleading and proof of the foreign law as if it were a factual issue. Wife appealed from dismissal of her suit in the NY court. The public policy defense to the application of foreign law may be applied differently in the various jurisdictions.P is the administrator of a New York domiciliary who was killed while in Massachusetts due to the negligence of D‘s agent a NY corporation. The forum‘s choice of law rule requires reference to some foreign law. Courts generally permit recovery on debts arising from gambling activities that were legal where performed. Defendant did not perform because plaintiff was a Jew He also did not pay him a lump sum as the contract said because he was imprisoned by the Germans. The court found that the statute is not penal in the relevant international sense. American courts are empowered by statute to take judicial notice of the law of sister states or that of the US. others permit their courts to determine 55 . Intercontinental Hotels Corps v Golden P sued in NY on a check and several IOUs which D a NY resident had given in Puerto Rico in return for money. Public policy grounds are important in two different situations: If the forum asserts this as a basis for dismissal of the suit without prejudice and if the forum asserts this as a basis for application of its own law and thereby decides the case on the merits. Public policy is not to be discovered by past precedent but by currently prevailing community attitudes.

When neither party pleaded or proved Arabian tort law. Directed verdict for D. (2) the constitutions and statutes of the United States and of every state. that the common law applies in foreign jurisdictions and that parties who fail to plead or prove foreign law acquiesce to the application of the forum‘s law. The consequences of failure to prove foreign law varies. contrasts with the civil law maxim that the court knows the law. constitution of US. Second the method for determining foreign law should minimize expenditures of time and money. Rule 202. rules adopted by US supreme court or TSC and any rules or regulations of which a statute of the US or TN mandates. —The court shall take judicial notice of (1) the common law. does the forum have an efficient procedure for determining the content of foreign law? The answer to the first question may depend on the forum’s tradition concerning the role of a judge. territory. Walton v Arabian American Oil Co. international law and maritime law. Neither party pleaded or proved French law. The answer to the second question is yes in most states. The law of the forum determines the consequences of the failure to prove foreign law. the trial court refused to take judicial notice of the law of Arabia. The court applied New Jersey law. In an international case such as this the forum may dismiss the suit. A desirable procedure for determining foreign law has two elements: first the determination of foreign law should be a task for the judge not jury and should be reviewable de novo as a question of law. Leary v Gledhill Leary sued Gledhill in NJ to force repayment of a loan allegedly made in France. (3) all rules adopted by the United States Supreme Court or by the Tennessee Supreme Court.the foreign law on their own. Judicial notice of law. Walton sued AA on a tort committed by D‘s agents in SA. The common law view that it is the parties’ responsibility to raise and brief issues. The law of the forum determines the consequences stemming from failure to prove foreign law. all duly published regulations of the fed and state agencies all duly enacted ordinance o municipalities and any matter of law which would fall within the state of this subdivision and finally all treaties conventions and laws of foreign countries. apply the presumption that both states are similar or apply the law of the forum Tennessee and judicial notice: Optional notice for all duly adopted federal and state rules of court. Notice and Proof of Foreign Law Notice and proof of foreign law raises two issues:  Must one of the parties inform the court that another jurisdiction has law different from that of the forum and persuade the court that forum law should be displaced with that foreign law?  Whether the burden is on a party or whether the court will on its own motion notice and apply foreign law. Since P refused to establish foreign law the court dismissed P‘s complaint. and other jurisdiction of the United States. —(a) Mandatory Judicial Notice of Law. the substantive law of the place of the tort must be applied. Certain common law presumptions may be applied to cases where foreign law is not proved: that the foreign law is the same as the forum‘s law. Mandatory notice for common law. and (4) 56 . Under NY‘s conflict principles.

The local law of the forum determines how the content of foreign law is to be shown and the effect of a failure to show such content. conventions. or otherwise rendered no longer in force. and the court may take. —All determinations of law made pursuant to this rule shall be made by the court and not by the jury. Shortly before the decision was rendered D‘s wife transferred to relatives real property located in Puerto Rico that otherwise would have been available to secure the judgment. international law. When foreign law is referred to the reference should be to that law for everything that might influence the outcome of the case. telling them at the time they act what their obligations are. (3) all duly enacted ordinances of municipalities or other governmental subdivisions. transcribed into the record. The traditional test says the substantive law is that law that speaks to the parties. —Upon reasonable notice to adverse parties. (4) any matter of law which would fall within the scope of this subsection or subsection (a) of this rule but for the fact that it has been replaced. judicial notice of (1) all other duly adopted federal and state rules of court. and maritime law. judges and juries at the time of litigation directing them in the effectuation of the substantive law. In making its determination the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. 1991. P alleged that D attempted to defraud her of her award. a party may request that the court take.] Advisory Commission Comments. and (5) treaties. (2) all duly published regulations of federal and state agencies and proclamations of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. § 24-6-207. except where it is directed to be done by the inferior court. 1991. The outcome test says that the forum should apply its procedural rules unless they affect the outcome of the litigation. superseded. 57 .any rule or regulation of which a statute of the United States or Tennessee mandates judicial notice. Notice and proof of foreign law per the restatement says the local law of the forum determines the need to give notice of reliance on foreign law. (b) Optional Judicial Notice of Law. (c) Determination by Court. effective July 1. to have the statutes of a state read as evidence in the inferior court. The issue of punitive damages will be governed by the law of the jurisdiction with the strongest interest. [As amended by order entered January 25. Whether a conveyance of land is fraudulent will be decided according to the law of the situs which is Puerto Rico. One of the objectives of conflict rules is uniformity of result wherever a lawsuit is brought. the form of notice and the effect of a failure to give such notice. but the appellate court may take judicial notice of such laws and statutes. Note that judicial notice of ordinances is discretionary and requires notice to adverse parties. James v Powell James was granted a libel judgment against Powell. Procedural law is that law which speaks to lawyers. foreign law It is not necessary. in a case carried from an inferior to an appellate court. the laws of foreign countries. Appellate courts.

Ms. in July of 1989 she requested disability benefits due to pain in her jaw. brought this defamation and interference with business relationship action against D‘s two doctors alleging that Ds published defamatory statement s to other doctors in Ohio and WV. While living in New York. The forum decides whether a foreign law is substantive or procedural but in making the decision give s consideration to the interpretation of foreign law by the courts of that state. Use of the Forum’s Procedural Rules Noe v US P sued D insurance company in Miss under a LA statute giving a right of direct action by a person injured in Louisiana against a liability insurer for damages sustained. Presumptions and Burden of Proof: The burden of proof may require one party to either raise the issue and go forward with the evidence or present certain elements of evidence as to a particular issue or lose thereon. The district court was justified in concluding that Ohio had the more significant relationship tot he dispute and that Ohio law should apply. The Supreme Ct. If the burden of proof means the burden to raise the issue and go forward with the evidence the failure to meet the burden generally does not have any profound effect on the case. Pennsylvania has adopted the interest‘s analysis approach to conflict of law questions.The Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act says any party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of any jurisdiction or governmental unit thereof outside this state shall give notice in his pleadings or other reasonable written notice. person. Rules of Evidence Article V Rule 501 says that in civil actions and proceedings with respect to an element of a claim or defense to which state law supplies the rule of decision. Ms. Here the review committee proceedings were held in Ohio. under NY law. Privileged Communications according to the restatement: Evidence that is not privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication will be admitted even though it would be privileged under the local law of the forum unless the admission of such evidence would be contrary to the strong public policy of 58 . Ms. The sole issue is which law applies. Sharp was no longer disabled. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. under FL. Under this approach the law of the predominantly concerned jurisdiction is applied. P said the law was substantive. of Florida ruled that in Fl the burden of proof issue for conflict of laws purposes. her new residence for five years. Shaps had the burden to prove she was still disabled. Sharps successfully applied for disability insurance. Samuleson v Susen Samuelson a neurosurgeon and resident of Ohio. the privilege of a witness. The insurer paid benefits and then discontinued payments citing that Ms. state or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with state law. the burden was on the insurance company. It commented that substantive law prescribes duties and rights and procedural law concerns the means and methods to apply and enforce those duties and rights. government. Rule 44 of the Fed Rules of Civ Proc says a party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice by pleadings or other reasonable written notice. Shaps v. Law. D stated it was procedural. Sharp filed suit in Florida. the insurer remanded the case to federal court.

Evidence that is privileged under the local law of he state which has the most significant relationship with the communication but which is not privileged under the local law of the forum will be admitted unless there is some special reason. The law of Mass is applied and breaks tradition. v Gourdeau Construction Co. Defendant argued at trial that the Illinois twoyear statute of limitations applied and therefore the claim was barred. Courts apply their own statute of limitations. Under Renvoi. The court does not look at dominant interests of the parties. 59 . Bournais brought suit under Panamanian law for back wages earned as a seamen. The court uses a relationship test to determine which state has the most significant relationship and in this case it was Mass. Statute of Limitations: If cut off right and remedy. Illinois conflict law could send it back to the home state. Trzecki v Gruenewald Plaintiff was injured when defendant‘s car was overturned near Illinois. NET sued Gordeau for breach of contract alleging that Gordeau damaged Net‘s equipment in NH. The injury occurred in 1970. the forum may treat the foreign limitations period as substantive. The general statue of limitations goes to the remedy rather than the right and as such is a foreign procedural rule that can be ignored by the forum. NH changed it statute to three years. When an action is based on a claim created by a foreign state that contains its own specific limitations rule. In general unless the exceptional circumstances of the case make such a result unreasonable: the forum will apply its own statute of limitations barring the claim. Restatement on statute of limitations: Whether a claim will be maintained against the defense of the statute of limitations is determined under the principles stated. Plaintiff filed suit on Nov 1972. Borrowing statute of Tenn. It would not apply here because both were living in Miss. This is an aberration of the borrowing statute. the forum will apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim unless maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum and the claim would e barred under the state of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence. The Supreme Court of Mo noted that the borrowing statue of Mo provided that if a cause of action was barred in the state under whose law it arose it was barred in Mo. Cropp v Interstate Distributor The Crops an Oregon couple are self employed truck drivers.the forum. forum state law will apply. Time Limitation Time limitations: the traditional approach. The trial court was affirmed. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. At the time of contracting both states had six-year statutes of limitations but before the damage. The statute of limitations of California will govern the action. TCA 28-1-112. Suit was brought in a US federal court after Panamanian statute of limitations had run. Ps sustained injuries when a truck owned by Interstate Distributor Co collided with their parked truck in California. All the parties were Missouri residents. Bournais v Atlantic Maritime Co. Plaintiff was riding in defendant‘s car as a guest passenger.

Significant contacts included. The forum state today will often apply the statute of limitations of the foreign state. 39/50 states no longer use common law rule of where the injury occurred. This is the same e result as if it had rejected the renvoi.Sun Oil Co v Wortman Plaintiffs filed an action in Kansas to recover interest on royalties from properties that were located in Texas. Examples of the System in Operation 60 . She had married an Army officer in England. if applying the entire law of France she would not qualify because she was not a citizen so it would go back to original domicile. place of conduct. As long as it is in good faith. But the law in France requires a formal process of establishing domicile which testatrix never did. In England the testator can dispose of their entire estate. If the foreign court refers back to the forum law including its choice of law rules which would then refer it back to the foreign court. it could be said that the testatrix had died domiciled in France. Oklahoma and Louisiana. Thus in tort cases the law of the place of the wrong applied.) The most significant relationship recognizes that the forum is directed to consider the contacts and interests of each state involved and to apply the law of the state having the most significant relation with the parties and the transaction in light of the particular issue before the court. In France the testator can dispose of only one third of their estate. the forum should accept the final bounce back but only to the extent of the foreign state’s internal law. The English court determined that the French court applied. ( torts. The first restatement supported the vested rights theory. Renvoi. In contract cases the law of the state where the contract was made applied to questions of validity of the contract. Kansas was free to apply its own statute of limitations. They filed in Kansas because the statute of limitations had run in the other states. the place of injury. There is no remedy if the court uses the wrong law. Under the traditional approach the statute of limitations is procedural and governed by the forum state. They moved to France and he died. SOL of forum will apply even if longer than law choice would give you. common law rule for contract law in dealing with validity of contract is where contract was executed. However. Here the court relied on the traditional characterization of statues of limitation as procedural I holding that a forums tae court does not violate either the full faith and credit or due process clause by applying its own statute of limitations to cases governed by another state’s substantive law Reference to the Choice of Law Rules of Another Jurisdiction In Re Annesley The decedent was an English citizen who had lived most of her adult life in France. The Problem of Choosing the Rule of Decision Chapter VIII Territorality and the Jurisdiction The traditional mode of analysis of conflict questions was based on the vested rights theory. This theory held that the law of the state where a right was created should apply. Vested Rights dealt with where the injury occurred. However. With contracts. place of each party’s residence and /or business and place where the relationship between he parties is centered. According to English law by living in France indefinitely and not maintaining a residence in England. The “bounce back approach” The forum approached a choice of law problem as the foreign court would. Common law rule was if issue dealt with how construed was to look at law of performance. The law of decision allows French law to be applied. They use contacts or most significant relationships.

It is a two step analysis: Characterize the area of substantive law as contact or tort and then localize the significant event or thing in a particular state and finally apply the law of that state. COA in one state. While plaintiff was away on military service in India defendant enticed plaintiff‘s wife to come to Mass. No injury occurred in Alabama. There could be no recovery in Miss as a result of Miss‘ fellow servant rule. Worker’s compensation is another example of unilateral application. Plaintiff made out a case under Alabama‘s employer‘s Liability Act. Tort Alabama v Carroll Plaintiff was a brakemen working for defendant railroad. Other employees of the defendant railroad failed to properly inspect car links in Alabama.000. Defendant moved the trial court to instruct the jury to find the defendant if they believed the evidence but trial court refused. Mexican law permitted recovery of $2/day or $6000. Plaintiff and drivers are all California residents. Under this approach. Total damages were $40. the court either applies the law of its own state or dismisses the case. The court found the crime is punishable under the law where the result occurs. Best argument is marital relationship or center of gravity test. On some issues however.Unilateral vs multilateral. Plaintiff suffered both total and partial paralysis to his extremities as a result of spinal cord injury. Victor v Sperry Plaintiff was injured when the car in which he was riding as a passenger was struck by a car driven by defendant. defendant railroad is not liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of plaintiff‘s fellow servants‘ negligence. Criminal laws are unilateral. Issues may be split. As a result. Under Miss‘ fellow servant rule. Mass had alienation of affection law but Penn did not. On these matters the court conducts a unilateral analysis of its own law. Gordon v Parker Plaintiff and plaintiff‘s wife were Pennsylvania residents. US courts conduct a unilateral choice of law analysis in divorce cases. Most often a court resolves choice o f law problems with a multilateral analysis. Traditional Rules The traditional or vested rights approach to choice of law directs the forum in every case to apply the law of the state in which the rights of the parties vest. Trial court was also correct in applying the Mexican liability without fault provisions to its computation of damages. Punitives are remedies and probably should be procedural. See People v Olah. The recovery is determined by the law of the place of injury and therefore trial court properly limited recovery to $6000. in which it sits and applies the Mass rules. plaintiff sustained injuries in Miss. District court applies law of state. TheAlabama Supreme Court discussed the general rule that there can be no recover in the forum unless there could also be a recovery in the foreign jurisdiction where the injury took place. The law chosen may be that of the state in which the court sits or that of some other state. the court selects the law it views as appropriate in the light of the contacts of the parties and the transaction with the state whose law the court chooses. 61 . Typical this unilateral analysis asks whether applying forum law is fair to the parties and consistent with the policies underling the law. damages in another state.

many have adopted more policy oriented approaches such as Grouping contacts/ center of gravity approach (contacts) or the most significant relationship approach. the courts must make the determination. If the designation is incorporated as a fine print provision of an adhesion contract the courts are reluctant to uphold the designation. Contract Milliken v Pratt Plaintiffs were wholesalers in Portland. The guaranty was drafted in Maine but executed by defendant in Mass. The Maine law provided that a married woman might bind herself by contact and the law of Mass held that a married woman might not bind herself by contract. The restatement asserts that party choice will be upheld only if there is a substantial relationship with the law chosen or some other reasonable basis for selecting that law. If the issue is one of validity then no matter how clearly the parties have expressed their intention one state whose law might be applicable would refuse to give effect to that intention. Traditionally courts applied a separate choice of law to validity problems. Having abandoned the validity vs. allows the parties to choose any law to govern construction but limits their freedom to choose law for validity. Although numerous theories and rules have been formulated the courts have generally attempted to evolve principles that will give effect to the expectation of the contracting parties except when clearly outweighed by the interest or public policies of a state having a direct and immediate relationship to the transaction. Defendant executed a guaranty for $500 credit. The restatement. performance characterization as unworkable. In the absence of express designation by the parties as to which law is to govern their contract. Performance problems as distinguished from validity problems were traditionally governed by the law of the place at which performance is called for in the contract. If the issue is solely one of construction then any state that has a contact with the parties or the transaction would give effect to the parties’ intention if clearly expressed.In general problems involving construction and enforcement of contracts are among the most frequently litigated in the choice of laws area. All problems relating to the validity of a contract were to be determined by reference to the law of the place where the contract was made. Contract choice of law issues arise in two contexts validity and construction. extended to her husband by plaintiffs. According to the restatement. Since the transaction is centered in Maine the principle would require application of Maine law. The early decisions stressed the vested rights rationale. The court discussed the law of contracts holding that a contract is governed by the law in the place where it is completed. The modern rule will not be applied when the parties were not in equal bargaining positions in choosing such law. Plaintiffs brought suit. the validity of a contract will be sustained against the charge of usury if it provides for a rate of interest that is permissible in a state to which the contract has a substantial relationship and is not greatly in excess of the rate permitted by the general usury law of the state of the otherwise applicable law. The effect of the parties’ express designation as to applicable law: often contracting parties will expressly stipulate that the law of a particular state will govern all rights and obligations arising under the contract. Defendant‘s husband received the merchandise from plaintiffs relying on the guaranty for payment. Maine who extended credit to the husband of the defendant who with his wife was a Mass resident. Many modern courts allow the parties to incorporate foreign law into the contract as a shorthand alternative to including other provisions or interpreting those provisions already in their contract as long as the foreign law is not against public policy. This is clearly not the law today. Adhesion contracts are an exception. According to the traditional 62 .

The judgment against the railroad was affirmed and Pritchard was required to pay on the appeal bond. The Colorado legislation is substantially similar. Defendant paid nothing and plaintiff sued. The mortgage was duty filed in Nebraska and noted on the title to the truck. Parties can choose law that applies but the law chosen invalidated the contract. Louis Dreyfus v Paterson Steamships Suit is over the performance of the wheat. then in Nebraska. Pritchard v Norton Pritchard became surety on an appeal bond in Louisiana for a railroad against whom a judgment had been rendered in that state. No conflict. Wife died. The federal court decided that provisions meant English substantive law only not conflicts laws since the ship owner no doubt intended that provision to guarantee a uniform result no matter where any claim was brought. There is effort to construe meaning and intention of statute. Defendant also executed a chattel mortgage on a trailer truck. Canadian law because that is where the performance occurs. Courts tend to apply whichever law would uphold the sufficiency of consideration provided the parties could reasonably be assumed to have contracted with reference to that law. The ticket itself provided that English law ould apply to all questions. Reasonable to see if statutes in question are in harmony with your state. The parties clearly intended that McComb and Norton should indemnify Pritchard against the appeal bond. Kinney Loan v Sumner Defendant entered a loan agreement with plaintiff in Colorado in accordance with the laws of Colorado.approach here all problems related to validity of the contract were to be determined by reference to the law of the place where the contract was made. They could only do that in Louisiana according to the laws of Louisiana. The court is looking at each state‘s statutes and what the purpose was. The suit was eventually brought in New York. The loan is enforceable in Nebraska. McComb and Norton executed an indemnity bond in NY to indemnify him for any losses arising out of the appeal bond. They are very similar. US and Canadian law are the same here. Agent said that would not be necessary. Siegleman v Cunard White Star Plaintiff‘s wife was injured on defendant‘s ship on the high seas on a rip from New York to Cherbourg. On selection of law there must be some reasonable 63 . Wife‘s attorney asked an agent for the ship company if he should commence suit in light of the one year limitation. His executrix sued McComb and Norton in Louisiana. Numerous terms and conditions were printed on the ticket plaintiff and his wife had bought providing in part that suit for injuries must be brought within one year of the injury. The rules comported with both Nebraska and Colorado law and was not usurious. The rationale is that the parties cannot be presumed to have contemplated a law that would defeat their promises. Relationship between transaction of states. Defendant withdrew their settlement offer. Nebraska‘s small loan statutes proved that loans for interest rates in excess of those permissible under Nebraska law are unenforceable in Nebraska even if entered into elsewhere unless such loan was made in accordance with some foreign small loan regulation substantially similar to Nebraska. Neither party offered proof of English law but was unnecessary since the district judge sitting as a state court judge exercised his option to judicially take notice of English law as he understood it. Admiralty federal law applies. It is clear that the parties contracted with a view toward the laws of Louisiana not those of New York. The presumption is that they chose a contract law that was valid.

His will made less than year before his death established a trust income payable to his widow and children for 20 years. This was an adhesion contract. This is an exclusive federal action. This is in Tenn. California law applied. Real property : for issues involving interest in real property once again a monolithic choice of law rule emerges: apply the law of the situs. Both were involved in an auto accident in Arizona. The forum may choose to regard the issue as procedural to escape applying another jurisdiction’s law. Wife filed in NH regarding property in NH. There will not be an equitable conversion in the state. Substance vs Procedure: Since the forum is required to apply only the substantive law of the jurisdiction chose. under these circumstances could not devise property to organizations of this kind. Texas law was found to govern the validity of the gifts to the extent of all of the lands and mineral interests in Texas. This is a 64 . Grant v McAuliffe Plaintiff and decedent were both California residents. The value of the real property for purposes of calculating distributive share does not take into account the value of other property in other states. Under California law they do. An Ohio statute provided that a testator with surviving issue. tort claims do not survive the tortfeasor‘s death. Escape Devices: To escape harsh and unjust results. The court found that the survivability issues was procedural not substantive. He was survived by his widow and brother. Plaintiff brought suit against decedent‘s estate in California. The brother was appointed administrator in New Hampshire. A contingent interest in land was an interest in land. His widow was appointed adminstratrix of his estate in to forum chosen. the corpus then to be divided among 20 charities. it is free to apply its own procedural law. The descent of real property is governed by the law of the state where the property is located. too. courts operating under the traditional approach often reach decision based on the equities presented and justify the result though various escape devices. The fiction of equitable conversion from realty to personalty or vice versa had no place in conflict of laws per the court. The equitable conversion would not defeat the situs rule in Texas. The partnership property was to pass directly to the corporation in return for stock. Texas had no such statute. At death the land had not been converted. A question of law was certified to the appellate court whether the law of Vermont or that of New Hampshire would determine widow‘s distributive share in the NH real property. This case raises contract rather than tort issues and therefore the court will attempt to enforce the contractual intent of the parties. The will incorporated a preexisting contract for incorporating the partnership. You have to look at the particular state‘s laws. Parties can always make reference to particular bodies of law relative to issues of interpretation since parties are free to contact and as such reference amounts to define of contract terms. Sinclair v Sinclair Epps S died domiciled in Vermont leaving no surviving issue. However questions of validity of the contract cannot be governed by the designated body of law unless that body of law I reasonably related to the contract. Deadlines for claiming dower or other interest in the estate are determined by the law of the situs. Toledo Society for Crippled Children v Hickok Testator was an Ohio domiciliary with real property in Texas most of which was owned in partnership. Brother appealed. Under Arizona law. The domicile of the intestate was irrelevant.

Schmidt v Driscoll Automobile Guest Statutes are examples: Babcock v Jackson Center of gravity in tort: Look at domicile of plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff‘s basis of recovery was negligence or alternatively breach of an implied contact. Dym v Gordon Governmental Interest Approach=Public Policy 65 . This was a family law problem not a torts case. The law of Texas the place of contract governs plaintiff‘s action based on D‘s breach of its implied contractual duty to carry its passengers safely. Here we have a California judge who ultimately goes on to make a determination to avoid this harsh rule.(quanititative + qualitative issues must be weighed). The court found that Wisconsin law applied. To avoid unfavorable law at the place of injury courts might recharacterize the basic problem as something other than a tort. The couple was domiciled in Wisconsin. California had no legitimate interest in protecting the marital harmony of Wisconsin domiciliaries or preventing collusive suits in Wisconsin courts. foreign as substantive vs procedural Grant v McAuliffe  Issue splitting. Escape Devices  Recharacterization. This tort occurred between two California citizens in Arizona. One rule of law and sends it back. Many states will recharacterize the issue of survivability to avoid the harsh traditional rule of place of injury. Alabama v Carroll  Classification. Usually returns it back to the internal law of the state. split cause of action and then apply a separate body of law to each Harmschild v Continental  Renvoi ( to return unopened).contorted way to get out of the rule of tort law Lex loci delicti. Nature of the action Harmschild v Continental Casualty Co Ms Haumschild sued her husband in Wisconsin for negligence arising out of a California car accident. place of tortious act and accident and the place of the relationship. tort vs contract. In Re Schneider‘s Estate  Public Policy Override. The purpose of California‘s immunity state was to preserve marriage and prevent collusion suits. refuses to apply the foreign law because it is obnoxious. The laws of the place of the tort must be looked at to determine the rights of the parties. Three approaches: Most significant relationships=center of gravity or contacts theories: Looks at all of the contacts that the parties have with various states and gives them quantitative and qualitative weight. Appears to be giving credibility to foreign law. The question of interspousal immunity was characterized her as a family law problem rather than a tort so as to justify reference to the law of the spouses‘ domicile rather than to the law of the place of injury Garcia v Greyhound Garza a resident of Texas brought this action against Greyhound a Texas corporation for personal injuries sustained by him while he was a passenger on a bus in Mexico on a trip arranged by D. Under California law plaintiff had no cause of action against her husband but Wisconsin‘s law would allow the suit. Here however no proper proof of foreign substantive law as made. Auten v Auten.

NY court applied Mass. Dym v. Driscoll Hotel – approaching a ―contacts‖ theory of choice of law Defendant sold intoxicants in one state.Vested Rights/Traditional = Territorial American Motorists Insurance Co. If not. Jackson – center of gravity NY residents injured in wreck in Canada. Ease in determination Restatement § 145 The General Principle 1. Northeast Airlines – public policy escape Man bought ticket in NY. “Center of Gravity” theory adopted. v. See §145 2(d) above. Basic underlying policies in field of law f. Issue: which law to apply. Rights of parties are determined by state which has MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP. Relevant policies of other interested states & relative weight of same d. After support payments stopped. then in NY. 2. Holding: Leans toward a “contacts” analysis – actually hold that tort was complete on sale of intoxicants. Place where injury occurred b. Each state would apply the other‘s conflicts laws. Holding: lex loci delicti discredited. Suit filed in NY. applying Maryland law and dismissing. Gordon – 66 . factors include: a. Protection of justified expectations e. etc. & NY law should have been applied. Babcock v. Needs of interstate/international systems b. Therefore. law including damage cap. Appellate holding: There is a strong public policy against damage caps. Restatement § 6 Choice of Law Principles 1. plane crashed in Massachusetts. Suit filed in Maryland. Auten – ―center of gravity‖ or ―grouping of contacts‖ theory English wife contracts in NY with NY husband. Place where conduct causing injury occurred c. residence. Place where relationship of parties is centered. of parties d. uniformity of result g. Schmidt v. Plaintiff sued driver in NY. wife sued in England. Contacts include: a. When there are constitutional restrictions. Predictability. Auten v. Issue: judge by where contract made or where to be performed? Holding: Court used “center of gravity”/contacts theory and applied English law. Relevant policies of forum c. Kilberg v. ARTRA – renvoi Paint manufacturer in Maryland involved with Illinois parties. court will follow own state law 2. Domicile. damages are procedural. wreck happened in another. Holding: this is a limited application of renvoi.

Colorado law forbade passenger from suing driver. Law should be applied. Contacts to be considered are: a. Suit filed in NY. Holding: NY has no legitimate interest in ignoring Canadian statute. no matter where accident happens When accident is in domicile state of EITHER P or D. Laws of state with most significant relationship control 2. Location of subject matter e. Holding: since parties were living in Colorado at time of accident. Place of performance d. Neumeier v. and D. Suit filed in NY. unless a.l. who are from different states When P. Cessna – most significant relationship in CONTRACT cases Texas victim killed in NM crash. Domicile. Choice of parties will stand if issue could have been subject of contract provision 2. SOL must be explicit part of contract Rudow v. In this case. Application of law would be contrary to law of state with greater interest Restatement § 188 – When Parties Have NOT Chosen a State 1. residence of parties Financial Bancorp v. Pingree & Dahle – s. Fogel – RARE case of court rejecting situs in land dispute Holding: Court rejected situs rule in land dispute. Holding: “Most significant relationship” replaces lex loci contractus. Colo. GENERALLY – When P. Canadian statute isolated driver from liability. are from different states and accident is in third place That state law applies That state law applies Apply law of site of accident UNLESS that would impair the working of the system Duncan v. Choice will stand anyway. Boy Scouts of America – common domicile rule 67 .NY residents collide in Colorado. Place of negotiation c. contacts there were greater. Kuehner – most significant relationship Canadian passenger riding in NY car which collided w/train in Canada. Schultz v. and D are from same state. Place of contracting b. Chosen state has no substantial relationship to parties b. Note: does NOT apply to contracts with proper ―choice of forum‖ clause Restatement § 187 – When Parties have Chosen a State 1. THIS IS VERY RARE. Texas had stronger interest in applying its laws.o. To defeat this presumption.‘s and contracts Holding: Statutes of limitations are USUALLY procedural. NY public policy is not implicated.

were killed in Mexico due to driver‘s negligence. get drunk. Casey v. NJ law should have applied. Restatement § 199 – Requirement of Writing 1. Holding: Defendant solicited business in California. not quantity. come to Nevada. Cooney v. rather than statute. REQUIREMENT OF WRITING Bernkrant v. and have wreck. PREDICTABILITY DeSantis v. court used Neumeier rule 3 and applied law of site of injury. Contract made in Nevada. Holding: Nevada has stronger interest in enforcing its laws. Holding: Where other interests are equal between competing states. There was no other NY contact. Ca. then in NJ. Harrah’s Club – ―comparative impairment‖ theory California residents enticed by casino ads. above. Court abandons “law of place” and analyzes which state’s policies would be most impaired by applying foreign law. Suit filed in Oregon. Requirement of formalities is determined by §§ 187-188 2. Osgood Machinery – Missouri worker injured by machine. 68 . Suit was filed in Virginia. Manson Construction – Oregon woman sued Washington plaintiff for injury to husband sustained in Washington. not quantity Texas citizens bought tickets in Texas. Clark – most significant relationship depends on quality. Bernhard v. was to be performed in Nevada. Holding: most significant relationship depends of quality of contacts. Trailways v. Oregon law should be applied. which would have voided it. Holding: Per Neumeier. Suit filed in NY. Holding: Oregon court applied Washington law to the detriment of its citizens. Holding: court assumes parties meant to apply common law. since parties had common domicile. had no such law. Eastern Auto – Delaware & NJ corporations contracted to apply NY law. NOTE: McDaniel says the default position is generally to apply the forum law. Fowler – Dispute centered on Nevada and California requirements for writing in forgiving a debt.NJ Plaintiff children were abused in NY. Formalities required by place of execution usually acceptable Peugeot v. by NJ scoutmaster. Holding: since there is a risk spendthrift would become a public charge in Oregon. which would give effect to contract. Suit filed in NY. Wackenhut – California/Oregon dispute over enforcement of Oregon ―spendthrift‖ law.

Holding: Defendant would not have relied on Maine wrongful death statute to regulate his conduct. sued in New York. Ohio plaintiffs and Missouri accident. Suit filed in California. (c) the domicile. SUMMARY OF INTEREST ANALYSIS Torts Interest of forums. Miller v. Difference is in damage limitations. Decedents wife sued in NY. between the parties is centered.” Court refused on public policy basis to apply Mass. Note: it is logical to evaluate state interest at time of TRIAL. residence. had damage limitation. Larson – Danish seaman signed contract agreeing to apply Danish law. Holding: Court analyzed available remedies rather than conduct being regulated.r. 69 . Mo.r. Sues in NY. NOT time of INCIDENT Rosenthal v.‖comparative impairment. and (d) the place where the relationship. Purcell – ―available remedy‖ analysis Wrongful death action with California defendant. Lauritzen v. Issue: whether to apply Georgia s. of the parties. if any. Continental Oil – ―Better Rule‖ analysis Holding: California court applied Louisiana law as “the better rule. Gantes v. Warren – NY citizen gets treatment in Mass. Kason Corp.Offshore Rental v. It applied Ohio law.” RARE Reich v. McKinley – Tenn. Miller – NY resident killed in Maine while passenger in car driven by brother. Brother then moved to NY. ―center of gravity. other two states did not. etc. adopts ―most significant relationship‖ Diving accident case. better rule Restatement § 175 § 187 – Autonomy generally accepted §188 – most significant relationship Death Claims Contracts TENNESSEE CASES Hattaway v. law. Holding: Suit in NJ court does not burden Georgia courts. – Georgia/NJ dispute filed in NJ. It is appropriate to apply NY law. Holding: Factors to be considered in determining the most significant relationship are: (a) the place where the injury occurred (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred.o. No need to apply Georgia s. Holding: Massachusetts policy is “absurd and unjust. Injured in Havana. Holding: Apply Danish law per contract. TSC adopts ―most significant relationship‖ test.o.

Plaintiff had not filed claim. Tennessee Holding: Since Plaintiff had not filed claim or won a judgment. Flo-Warr Management – using ―center of gravity‖ when two states involved in contracts Employment contract was signed in Tennessee. Bradshaw v. Tennessee Holding: the knowing submission to. Goodwin Bros. It was simply fortuitous that accident occurred here. Solomon v. Tenn. but had accepted voluntary payments. GM – Kansas debate team killed in Tenn. Tennessee requires ―Aguillar-Spinelli‖ two pronged test. Holloway Construction Co. Standard Fire Ins.McDonald v. Brunner – ―substantial relationship‖ required to validate choice of law Illinois plaintiff sold plane to Tennessee Defendant. Contract had Texas choice-of-law clause. recovery Worker‘s Comp dispute. that evidence will be admissible here. Federal Court holding: Court will use Tennessee substantive law to determine which state law to apply. Holding: this case decided on a “center of gravity” theory. H&B – ―substantial relationship‖ required Holding: Tennessee will enforce a choice of law clause with a substantial relationship. Holding: since land is located in Tennessee. then Tennessee test must be applied. First Christian v. – TN/TX worker‘s comp dispute. Holding: there must be a “substantial relationship” with chosen forum for a choice of forum clause to be valid. he was not barred by Bradshaw from filing here. –BUT– Gray v. another state IS an election of remedies. or request for compensation in. If they uncover evidence acting alone. Otherwise it is NOT enforceable. Florida does not recognize holographic wills. O’Donley – lex loci contractus in insurance contracts Tennessee Holding: Absent a choice of law clause. Domicile of decedent is extremely important factor. 70 . Note: Tennessee maintains most significant relationship test for TORTS Carefree Vacations v. Tennessee courts have applied law of state where policy was purchased (contract was made) – lex loci contractus. Kentucky requires ―totality‖ test. On termination. Old Republic – request for worker‘s comp in another state bars Tenn. Surviving wife later wrote holographic will in Tennessee with conflicting disposition of land. and bars recovery in Tennessee. Cauley – criminal conflicts law Tennessee/Kentucky warrant case. V. Peterbilt – NOTE: THIS CASE IS PRE-HATTAWAY Holding: lex loci delicti was applied State v. Holding: if sister state law officers are acting as agents of Tennessee. v. Moneypenny – situs controls disposition of land Couple had wills drafted in Florida. Tennessee law controls disposition of land. Coffee v. the parties negotiated an second exit contract in Alabama.

federal courts apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit. Holding: rules on service are procedural. IMPARTIALITY 2. then moved to transfer back to his home state. Holding: state rules may not disrupt judge-jury relationship in federal court. ELIMINATION OF FORUM SHOPPING Guaranty Trust v. Blue Ridge – federal courts do NOT apply rules which conflict with constitution Diversity case on injured workman. John Deere – forum shopping & transfers are proper under the rules Injured Plaintiff forum-shopped to state with longer s. Stentor Electric – district court must apply forum state‘s conflicts law Issue: must federal court in diversity case apply conflicts law of state in which it sits? Holding: district court must apply ALL substantive laws. once district court make determination. District court found much larger damages than proof showed. Result in federal diversity case should be same as if it were tried in state court. Holding: in reviewing judgments. Thompkins – federal courts apply state substantive law Landmark holding: In federal diversity cases. Dispute over collateral inheritance. CONFLICTS IN FEDERAL SETTINGS Erie v.Delamotte v. SCOTUS holding: was proper to allow plaintiff to have choice of where to 71 . Note: if there is no substantive law to cover an issue – federal court may certify. but may not INVENT rule or law Note: Court of Appeals reviews DE NOVO district court determinations of state law. district court should have applied the “deviates materially from what is necessary to compensate” standard. Klaxon v. However. Plumer – Federal rules prevail Ohio Plaintiff did not comply with ―delivery in hand‖ service on Massachusetts defendant. Ferens v. Hanna v. York – federal courts apply state ―outcome determinative‖ rules Holding: “Outcome determinative” rules such as s. jury. Court of appeals may NOT do de novo review – violates Seventh Amendment provision against reexamination of fact tried to a jury. State rule conflicted with constitution on role of judge.l. Tennessee holding: Law of domicile of decedent controls which state law applies to inheritance. Adoption case.l.o. not substantive.. Strout – domicile of decedent controls inheritance TN/MO. Based on Seventh Amendment.’s should be applied. –BUT– Gasperini v. including conflicts law. TWIN AIMS OF ERIE 1.o. Center for Humanities – Seventh Amendment ―reexamination‖ in diversity cases Lost photo case. Byrd v. Federal rules on service prescribed by Congress prevail.

72 . and proper to apply transferor law from that state to transferee state under RULE 1404.‘s are substantive in federal diversity cases procedural in state courts Note: when federal question case is transferred. so be it. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Duhme & Co. Holding: Federal common law controls in federal question cases – NOT state substantive law. SCOTUS holding: there is no federal common law standard of care as to bank officer. apply state law Bank in receivership sued FDIC. Susen (revisited) Holding: if applying state conflicts law takes federal court to another state’s privilege law. v.o. FDIC – when no federal statute exists.– federal common law in federal question cases Federal Question suit filed in Missouri. State law should be applied. Note: s. apply rules of receiving court Samuelson v. Atherton v.file. D’Oench.l.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful