Conflict of Laws
Conflict of Laws tests three questions: which court may hear the case, which law applies, and whether another state's judgment must be honored. Kentucky courts apply Kentucky procedural law in Kentucky proceedings, while substantive rights may be governed by another state's law.
Domicile and jurisdiction
Domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely. It matters for diversity jurisdiction, divorce jurisdiction, and taxation. A court needs personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction; a judgment rendered without either is vulnerable to collateral attack.
Choice of law
Kentucky courts generally apply the substantive law of the state with the most significant relationship to the issue, weighing the place of injury or contracting, the parties' residence, and the policies of the forums. For torts, Kentucky has moved away from strict lex loci delicti toward a significant-contacts approach. For contracts, the parties' chosen law is usually honored unless contrary to a fundamental Kentucky policy.
Statutes of limitations and the borrowing statute
Limitations periods are generally procedural, so Kentucky applies its own period. But KRS 413.320 provides that a claim barred by the law of the state where it arose is barred in Kentucky, unless the plaintiff is a Kentucky resident. This borrowing statute prevents forum shopping for a longer limitations period.
Recognition of judgments
Under full faith and credit, a valid final judgment of a sister state must be recognized by Kentucky courts. The merits cannot be relitigated; defenses are limited to lack of jurisdiction, fraud in procurement, or lack of finality.
Worked example
A Kentucky resident is injured in Ohio by an Ohio driver and sues in Kentucky two years later. Because the plaintiff is a Kentucky resident, KRS 413.320 generally will not borrow Ohio's shorter limitations period; the Kentucky court applies its own limitations rule, then likely applies Ohio substantive tort law under significant-relationship analysis.
Traps
Calling every choice-of-law issue substantive; forgetting the resident exception in KRS 413.320; treating a sister-state default judgment as unenforceable without a jurisdictional defect; conflating domicile with residence.