Conflict of Laws

Where a person bears a certain legal incapacity (e.g., infancy, mental incompetency).

The marital child's domicile follows that of the father (or the mother if the father is deceased) during the child's minority. In cases of divorce or separation, domicile follows the parent who has custody. A minor child may establish a separate child by "emancipation" (reaching the age of discretion or leaving home) or by marriage.

One who lacks the legal capacity to select a domicile will retain the domicile of his parents. When a person previously had capacity and at that time chose his domicile, only later becoming incompetent, he will retain the domicile of his choice.

The domicile of a married person is determined without regard to that person's gender. The law no longer automatically assigns to a wife the domicile chosen by her husband.

Two requirements: (i) physical presence, and intention to be domiciled.

These are questions of fact.

That she intends to remain there indefinitely.

No. A person may change domicile with the motive of gaining an advantage in litigation, as long as she has a genuine intent to change her domicile and is physically present in the new domicile.

Until she perfects the two-part test elsewhere (presence plus intent).

The "principal home" will qualify as the domicile of choice.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Constitutional limitations arise either under the Due Process Clause or the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

If the forum state has any significant contacts with the parties or the subject matter of the action, whereby it has a legitimate interest in regulating the outcome of litigation.

When the forum state's only contact is the fact that suit was brought there or that the plaintiff once lived there.

Yes, e.g., borowing statutes, U.C.C. choice of law provisions, etc.

Yes.

Yes.

Which state has the greatest interest in the outcome of the litigation.

Where only one state has an interest in having its law applied. Apply the law of the interested state.

Where both states have an interest in having their laws applied. Reconsider the forum's policies and then either apply its law if it has an interest in doing so, apply the law of another state with a greater interest, or attempt a compromise.

The forum state has no interest but two other states do have an interest. Dismiss for forum non conveniens if available, or if not, pick the better law or hte law most like that of the forum.

No state has a legitimate interest. Apply the law of the forum.

Governmental interest analysis.

New York law. Other (foreign) laws would be applied where appropriate.

The law of the place of the tort.

The locus jurisdiction has a minimal interest in determining the right of recovery. Analysis favors the jurisdiction of common domicile.

Under Neumeier, the law of that state.

Under Neumeier, no.

Under Neumeier, no.

Under Neumeier, the law of the state where the accident occured (absent special circumstances).

New York will apply the law of the state where the plaintiffs and defendants are domiciled, even though many of the tortious acts took place within New york, in order to encourage the growth of charitable work within that state.

The place of domicile would apply its own law if the action were brought there. If brought elsewhere, analysis of respective policies and interests would be required.

No.

The law of the place of wrong.

In New York, countervailing interests may modify this rule.

The law of the place of contracting.

In New York, countervailing interests may modify this rule.

The governmental interest approach will generally lead to the place of the accident.

Standard interest analysis has been applied by New York courts in determining whether vicarious liability exists. Where there are relatively few or no New York contacts, the court of appeals will apply the law of the place of the tort.

Under interest analysis, the state with the Dram Shop Act would not apply its own law.

Yes.

No, because the purpose of nonsurvival rules is to protect the estates of decedents domiciled in taht state.

New York follows a strict interest analysis approach in wrongful death cases, applying its own law where it has an interest in doing so.

The court will usually apply the law of the plaintiff's domicile.

Rationale: She suffeed the greatest harm there, and the defendant should not insulat ehimself from liability acting in a state that grants him immunity.

Determine if there are significant contacts within the state for jurisdiction and application of forum law; consider whether (i) the employment contract was entered into in the state, (ii) the injury occured in the state, (iii) the employee resides in the state, or (iv) the employee relationship is being performed in the state.

Yes, as long as the choice of law was reasonable.

Yes, if significant contacts exist within the state.

Yes, generally.

Yes, but any recovery in one state will be credited against an award in the second state. This is true even where the first state's statute or judgment provides that it shall be the worker's exclusive remedy.

Courts will not allow such an action if the workers' compensation statute of the first state grants the defendant immunity from tort liability. This recognition of the first state's statutory immunity is generally discretionary with the forum state. There is strong judicial support in New York for protecting the workers' compensation immunity granted by an interested jurisdiction.

Yes, unless (i) it is contrary to public policy; (ii) there is no reasonable basis for the parties' choice; (iii) there is no "true consent" (e.g., fraud, mistake, adhesion contracts); or (iv) the New York Statute of Frauds is circumvented.

The parties' choice of law.

That provision governs and a contrary agreement (by the parties) is effective only to the extent permitted by law, including the conflict of law rules.

Transactions bearing an appropriate relation to New York.

Parties may expressly agree that New York law governs contracts exceeding $250,000, regardless of whether the contracy bears a reasonable relation to New York, unless the contract relates to labor or personal services or is governed by other U.C.C. provisions

Clear interest analysis.

Yes, if they are valid under the law of any jurisdiction with a reasonable relationhsip tot he contracy. If the law of both states makes the rate usurious, the one with the less severe penalty will be selected.

The law of the state where the policy was written, regardless of where the accident occured.

Situs.

Note that this is even though the governmental interest approach tends to place less emphasis on situs.

The law of the situs of the personaly, even when it substantially clashes wiht the result preferred under interest analysis.

The law of the domicile.

Under U.C.C. sections 9-102 and 9103, the law of the debtor's chief place of business.

The New York inheritance statute.

The law of the situs.

The law of the situs.

EXCEPTION: For New York realty only, formal validity will be satisfied if it meets the requirements of (i) New York, (ii) the state of execution, or (iii) the domicile of the testator at the time of execution or death.

The law of the decedent's domicile at the time of death.

The decedent's domicile at the time of death, subject to the following exceptions: (i) As to formality issues, the will is valid if valid in New York, the state of execution, or the domicile of the testator at the time of execution or death; (ii) as to intrinsic validity, if so valid under the law of the testator's domicile at the time of execution, a subsequent change in domicile will not upset that validity; (iii) as to interpretation, the law of the testator's domicile at the time the instrument is executed governs; (iv) as to revocation or alteration, the law of the testator's domicile at the time the subsequent instrument is executed or the physical act is performed governs.

NOTE: When not bound by the foregoing statutory proviison concerning inheritance distributions, New York will resort to governmental interest analysis. Also note that New York statute prevents escheat of local property to another state or foreign country.

A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere; one void where celebrated is void everywhere.

No.

Yes.

Yes, although broad accomodation is given to religious groups who do not wish to perform gay marriages.

The violation of directory rules will not render the marriage invalid in the place of domicile.

The violation of prohibitory rules will render it invalid.

Directory rules are more adminsitrative in nature (e.g., rules requiring a marriage license, parental consent, and a certificate of blood test).

Prohibitory rules are generally those that express the strong public policy of the state (e.g., rules against incest, polygamy, and marriage under a minimum age).

Annulment is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (although there is a trend to apply the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the marriage).

The law of the plaintiff's domicile, i.e., the forum state.

The law of the state that ordered the payments will determine whether, and to what extent, the orders are modifiable?

If valid under the law of the parents' domicile.

There is a recent trend to uphold validity if sufficient under the law of the child's domicile.

Property incidents of status, under the traditional view, are governed by the law governing the disposition of the property in question.

A court applies its own ocal law to govern adoptions. Property incidents of adoption are the same as for determining the child's status.

• The law to be applied is procedural;
• The law is against the forum's public policy; and
• The law is a penal or tax law.

Its own.

The law of the forum.

• Civil practice rules in general;
• Burden of proof in general;
• Rebuttable presumptions;
• Statutes of limitations in general; or
• Ability to bring counterclaims.

• Civil practice rules that would change outcome;
• Burden of proof that would affect the decision;
• Irrebuttable presumptions;
• Statutes of limitations that condition a substantive right or limit a contractual right, and borrowing statutes;
• Statute of Frauds;
• Parole evidence of rule;
• Contribution among joint tortfeasors;
• Direct action statutes;
• Survival of action; and
• Adverse possession.

Yes. (Use this defense sparingly.)

Only if such other states reciprocate and, as a matter of comity, enforce New York revenue laws.

When the forum does not like the foreign law that the forum's choice of law rules refer it to.

It allows the forum to apply the foreign jurisdiction's choice of law rules, which may refer the forum back to its own law or to the law of a third jurisdiction.

Renvoi problems generally do not arise in New York since, under the governmental interest approach, New York would apply the substantive rule of the most interested state (unless a chocie of law statute dictated a different result).

Yes. E.g., federal antitrust, bankruptcy, patent laws.

In some areas. Some state statutes direct state courts to enforce federally created rights (e.g., Federal Employer's Liability Act). It is unclear whether the states must do so. (Apparently yes, if the states would enforce analogous rights. If so, a state may not avoid enforcement by procedural characterization.)

Under Erie, because there is no federal common law, federal district courts must apply the substantive law of the state in which the district court sits. The Erie doctrine was extended in Klaxon to require application of state conflict of laws rules as well. The Erie doctrine does not, however, require the application of a state's procedural law.

If a conflict arises between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a state civil practice rule, the state rule will be tested as substantive and applied if it would result in an important difference in the outcome of the litigation (i.e., the "outcome determinative test").

Today, most states (including New York) grant courts the discretion to take judicial notice. However, a court must take notice if a party requests it, furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to comply with the request, gives the adverse party notice, and in New York, pleads the foreign law.

If a partyrequests it, furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to comply with the request, gives the adverse party notice, and in New York, pleads the foreign law.

Yes. If not proved, the consequences will be decided pursuant to the law of the forum (unless application fo the New York law would create injustice).

A voluntary recognition of a judgment rendered in another jurisdiction.

Recognition usually depends on whether the foreign courty has jurisdiction and whether fair procedures were used in adjudicating the case.

Under comity, absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment or that recognition of the judgment would violate a strong public policy of New York, a party to the foreign action is precluded from collaterally attacking the judgment's validity in a New York court.