Conflict of Laws: Choice of Law and Judgments
What the exam tests
Conflict of laws tests domicile, choice-of-law methodology, constitutional limits on choice of law, recognition and enforcement of judgments, and the Erie doctrine. Expect a fact pattern with contacts in multiple states.
Core rules
- Domicile: physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely. A person can have only one domicile; it changes when the old domicile is abandoned and a new one is established.
- Choice of law: traditional vested-rights approach uses the place of the wrong or place of contracting. Modern approaches use the most significant relationship, considering the place of injury, conduct, domicile, and the parties' expectations.
- Constitutional limits: a state may apply its law only if it has a significant contact or aggregation of contacts creating state interest, so the choice is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair (Allstate v. Hague).
- Public policy exception: a court may refuse to apply foreign law that violates fundamental public policy, but it is narrow.
- Judgments: full faith and credit requires recognition of sister-state judgments that are valid and final. The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act governs support. Foreign judgments are recognized under comity and state statutes.
- Erie: federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.
Worked example
A car accident occurs in State X between two drivers domiciled in State Y. State Y caps damages; State X does not. Under the most significant relationship, State X law likely governs because the accident and conduct occurred there and X regulates highway safety. If both parties were domiciled in Y and the car was insured there, Y's interest might be stronger.
Traps
Do not assume the place of injury always controls. Domicile requires intent, not just residence. A court may not apply a foreign penal law. Erie is not a choice-of-law rule.