Conflicts of Law Outline
party & the state COL: That PLUS contacts between regulated subject
Download 381.41 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Privileges Immunities/Equal Protection
- Hughes
- Privileges Immunities Clause
- Baldwin
- No State May: (1) Discriminate against foreign based causes of actions by systematically depriving its local courts of jurisdiction over them ( Hughes
- Facts
- No State May: (2) Discriminate against foreign forums ( Tenn Coal ) by limiting disputes under its law to its own courts
- Can the forum constitutionally apply its own law
- Alaska Packers ) Alaska Packers v. Industrial Accident
- Pacific Employers v. Industrial Association
- Watson v Employers Liability
- Bradford Electric v. Clapper
- Gerling Global Reinsurance v. Gallager
- Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts
| party & the state
COL: That PLUS contacts between regulated subject & the state Due Process: If the use of a certain COL method results in the application of the law such that unfair surprise is triggered, then the constitution won’t allow it, as it becomes a due process violation. A court will uphold application of the forum law unless it’s an arbitrary and unnecessary interference with the individual’s right to personal liberty. (right to contract) As long as forum has a reasonable relationship to the parties or the cause, it may reject all foreign law in favor of its own law, but where there are no such contacts, due process imposes limits. Hartford v. Delta: A state may limit/prohibit certain contracts within its own territory, but it can’t extend the effect of its laws beyond its borders to destroy or impair the right of citizens of other states to make a contract not operative within its jurisdiction, and lawful where made A state doesn’t need to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning something that it is competent to legislate Forum is always privileged to apply its own procedure, but choice of its procedure can be unconstitutional if the rule itself is unconstitutional (too surprising), so application of state’s procedural law in its own forum is likely constitutional Privileges & Immunities/Equal Protection: Sometimes constitutional argument can be framed as a non-discrimination argument. Courts are forbidden from discriminating against another state just as you’re forbidden from discriminating against an individual (state or the individual can be the beneficiary of a right) Both explicit discrimination (Hughes) and implicit (Broderick) are invalid Forum Opening Rule: A forum must open their courts for foreign based causes of action, unless: (1) The forum has real antagonism against the foreign state’s law Court needs a sufficient justification to refuse to enforce a foreign judgment, and must tailor the discrimination to fit that justification Ex: if WI’s statute prevented hearing any wrongful death causes from anywhere (2) The case doesn’t meet forum non conveniens requirement (Ex: Administrative difficulty) Privileges & Immunities Clause protects more than just the economic or commercial interests Not states discriminating against other states’ causes of action or forums, like previously, but here discrimination against another state’s citizens So if there is some federal or national interest served by the mobility of the population, good chance that P&I will strike down any local restrictions Prof. Laycock: If legislatures acted generally on Currie’s view that they owe nothing to the citizens of sister states, the Union would be destroyed Ex: Recreational licenses can be restricted in a way that professional licenses cannot (no fundamental need to fish, but fundamental need to work) No problem with traditional choice of law – phrased without regard to where parties were domiciled, just looked at vested rights based on where x happened But with interest analysis – recognized domiciles as important state interests, so that increased importance of P&I clause in reducing discrimination Limitations of the P&I Clause: (1) Prevents discrimination only against citizens, not residents of other states Piper FN 6- “citizen” and “resident” are used interchangeably (2) Protected privileges were only those which are fundamental in some sense The opportunity to practice law is a fundamental right, legal profession is important in the national economy, and also attorneys play a non-commercial role and should be protected under the P&I clause (Piper) Only those P&I’s that bear on the vitality of the nation as a single entity are protected (like something restricting doing business across state lines) Baldwin: Hunting elk isn’t a “fundamental” right under the P&I clause Piper: NH Supreme Court rules limit bar admission to state residents P&I Clause does not prohibit discrimination if there is: (1) a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and (2) where the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the state objective State offers reasons why discrimination is needed – Court rejects State can test non-resident attorneys to ensure their familiarity with the rules, no reason to think they would behave dishonestly and they’re susceptible to the same disciplinary rules as in-state lawyers Rehnquist (dissent): Here, shouldn’t look at each state reason and find a better way to accomplish that goal than the one chosen – that’s legislating Equal Protection Clause functions similar to the P&I clause by: (1) preventing discrimination against “foreigners” (the test of the reasonableness of the distinction is the same in P&I and EPC), (2) and the EPC forbids unreasonable distinctions between citizens of the state whose law is in issue Under interest analysis a state that is interested in applying is law because a party is a resident withholds the protection of that law from a non-resident in the interest of comity- to leave room for the non-resident’s home state law No State May: (1) Discriminate against foreign based causes of actions by systematically depriving its local courts of jurisdiction over them (Hughes) Laws that promote a state’s objectives by withholding jurisdiction from local courts to hear foreign causes of action are subject to strict scrutiny review (Hughes) Laws that promote a state’s objectives by defining the parties substantive rights in a particular way get the rational basis deference under the FF&CC (Hughes) Hughes v. Fetter: Accident in IL, sued in WI under IL wrongful death statute Facts: WI’s wrongful death act doesn’t allow other statutes to be heard in WI court Holding: WI must provide a forum. Wisconsin’s statute which excludes an Illinois cause of action is invalidated by the FF&C because it discriminates against causes of action heard outside the state Reasoning: Interest in unifying principle of FF&C clause, but WI has a public policy interest against allowing WI courts to hear any other state’s wrongful death claim Discriminatory because WI has a policy supporting wrongful death actions, and no conflict with IL against hearing a wrongful death actions – only closed the courts to actions that arose outside of WI Rule: A state cannot escape the constitutional FF&C obligation to enforce the rights and duties validly created under the laws of other states by removing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent to hear the claims Dissenting: Suspicious of any rule that forbids forum from applying its own law Sufficient reasonable basis for WI law to apply so shouldn’t make forum choose another law, because if the reverse were true (died in WI, sued in IL), IL court would dismiss the suit, so no need for WI not to dismiss it too No State May: (2) Discriminate against foreign forums (Tenn Coal) by limiting disputes under its law to its own courts Tennessee Coal v. George: George worked for TN Coal in AL, sued in GA under AL statute Facts: AL statute said that cause of action must be brought in AL, nowhere else Holding: Can hear in GA because AL’s exclusive remedy provision discriminates against GA courts. Can’t deny other courts the ability to hear cases because it impedes upon their state sovereignty by discriminating against their courts/ Rule: A transitory cause of action can be maintained in another state even though the statue creating the cause of action provides that the action must be brought in local domestic courts – can’t create a transitory cause of action and then destroy the rights to sue under it in certain courts Reasoning: Where liability clause is coupled with a clause for a special remedy, that remedy alone must be employed, but here, the right and remedy aren’t so intertwined that the right is dependent upon it being enforced in a particular tribunal FF&CC: Do they have to give FF&C to all “public acts” meaning statutes? Policies? Art IV, § 1: FF&C shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress can by legislating prescribe the manner in which Acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof FF&C does not enable one state to legislate for the other or to protect its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within that state’s territory (Pacific Employers) Requires that a state respect the legitimate interests of other states and avoid infringement upon their sovereignty, however, it does not require the forum state to apply foreign law every time foreign states have any contact to transaction FF&C is violated only if application of forum law threatens federal interest in national unity by unjustifiably infringing upon legitimate interests of another state Policy: Interstate tensions will be reduced if states are required to recognize and enforce the acts of other states (needed to make one nation out of many sovereigns – ensure interstate respect) A rigid and literal enforcement of FF&C would lead to an absurd result, that a forum would always be forced to apply the law of the other state involved. Can the forum constitutionally apply its own law? YES: Forum Can Constitutionally Apply Its Own Law Burden rests on people who challenge application of forum’s law to prove the superiority of another state’s interest – so presumption in favor of forum applying its own law if there is a minimal connection to the transaction or the parties (Alaska Packers) Alaska Packers v. Industrial Accident – DUE PROCESS Facts: Non-resident employee sued employer’s insurance in CA for injuries in AK Applied for workers compensation in CA for an injury he sustained in AK Holding: CA law applies. CA’s interest is sufficient to justify its legislation, and Alaska doesn’t have a strong enough interest for its law to be used in place of CA’s No due process violation because the state of CA had a rational basis and wasn’t an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of state power Rule: Every state is entitled to enforce in its own courts its own statutes, BUT the person alleging that the foreign state’s law should be applied has the burden to show that the foreign state has a superior interest in the conflict Balances FF&C by looking at the interests of the state’s in the result of the conflicting policies (balancing test) CA state supreme court said that giving effect to the Alaska statute is contrary to the policy of the state Notes: Different than Clapper where the VT statue explicitly applied to injuries out of state, but CA didn’t have a provision like that (plus employee was a non-CA resident which cuts against it, but court ignored) Pacific Employers v. Industrial Association – FULL FAITH & CREDIT/DP Facts: Mass employee injured in CA while working for Mass employer (common dom), CA workers comp applies to all injured within the state, MA workers comp waives employees common law right of action or any other forum’s law to recover for injuries unless they give written notice to the employer that they intend to do so Holding: CA can apply its law. The interest of Mass in safeguarding the compensation of out of state employees isn’t great enough to overcome CA’s interest in regulating safety and economic protection of people within its borders The FF&C clause doesn’t require one state to substitute its own statute for the conflicting statute of another state – CA had a rational basis for promulgating worker protective legislation, and for CA to apply the Mass statute, need a reason for the CA courts to decline to apply their own statute Reasoning: An interested state can always apply law notwithstanding the interest of the other state as long as there are any interests (threshold test) Don’t need superior interests, just sufficient interests Obnoxious to the CA legislature to deny persons the right to compensation under the CA act because they’re applying another statue Allstate Insurance v. Hague – DUE PROCESS Facts: Accident in WI, both drivers were WI dom’s, P worked in MI where insurance covered his cars, after accident before case, wife moved to MI Under MI law, can “stack” insurance policies, but not in WI Minnesota Interest: Stacking allows broader distribution of accident costs through premiums than the non-stacking rule (more modern law) Wisconsin Interest: No stacking so potentially improves uniformity? Holding: Minnesota had sufficient aggregation of contacts for the application of its law to the insurance dispute to be constitutional Court abandons the balancing-of-sovereign-state-interests approach to conflicts of law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause Reasoning: Important contacts: (1) Mr. Hague worked in Minnesota (workplace has important police powers, his insurance cover him during his work commute) (2) Allstate was doing business in Minnesota – licensed there No unfair surprise that it would be liable to suit there Is state interest implicated? The business in Minnesota had nothing to do with the contract in question here – this was a WI contract (3) Executor of estate was a Minnesota resident Is state interest implicated? No because creates unfair surprises if post-accident occurrences can count as contacts Stevens (concurring): Defendants alleged no threat to Wisconsin’s sovereignty Wisconsin interests aren’t threatened because parties didn’t make their contract in reliance on Wisconsin law – no COL in contract Presumption for forum law application – significant interest to apply their law- fair and efficient administration of justice to apply law you know well Nothing in the K that talked about “stacking” – could have contracted around, and Allstate should have known they could be sued throughout US Powell/Roberts/Rehnquist (dissenting): Have to determine whether the contacts present a reasonable link between the litigation and the state policy Court should invalidate a forum state’s decision to apply its own law when there are no significant contacts between the state and the litigation Test is the same as the plurality – just Brennan thinks there are enough contacts, and Powell doesn’t think there are Notes: Go through the two part test to determine of constitutional under DP/FF&CC State Interests: Court found an interest in the state’s desire to compensate residents so that the state is protected from creating dependents Unfair Surprise: Allstate probably had notice that Hague drove from WI to MI every day – knew the stacking policy could K around Watson v Employers Liability: Hair product injury to LA resident, sued in LA against a company HQ’d in Massachusetts but manufactured in Illinois Holding: Forum (LA) can apply its own law – court found no DP issue No problem with unfair surprise – insurance K in Mass, but was to protect subsidiary against damages suffered anywhere in the US No problem with state interests – LA resident was injured in-state, sold in Louisiana, LA had a direct contact statute Holding: LA doesn’t have to subordinate its law to Mass contract rules – too difficult to make a LA resident serve process in Mass or IL – unfair to injured party Nevada v. Hall: SCOTUS upheld CA’s application of CA law with no damage cap in place of Nevada’s $25k damage cap – got huge damage award instead of $25k No interference with NV’s sovereignty for accident occurring outside of Nevada NO- Forum Cannot Constitutionally Apply Its Own Law Home Insurance v. Dick – DUE PROCESS Facts: Texas citizen sued a Mexican corporation to recover on a fire insurance policy (2 year SOL in Texas, 1 year SOL in Mexico) Holding: The forum (TX) cannot constitutionally apply its own laws – insufficient contacts between the forum and the parties/transaction to apply forum law. It is a Due Process violation if the TX courts impose an additional burden on the Mex transaction that the parties didn’t contract for – TX courts do not have the power to invalidate contracts made and performed in MEX Seizing property in payment of the obligation violates the guarantee against deprivation of property without due process of law Reasoning: Different because the parties expressly agreed upon SOL TX has a right to refuse foreign rights that violate its public policy, but the entire transaction happened out of state – only brought to TX by the suit Notes: Like Bournias: SOL is substantive because of risk of unfair surprise because of its application – wrapped up in the cause of action Bradford Electric v. Clapper – FULL FAITH & CREDIT Facts: Clapper (VT) employed by Bradford (VT corporation, PPB in VT), but injured while working in New Hampshire (forum) NH allowed workers comp or tort action, VT limited to workers comp Holding: VT law applies. The constitution prevents an employee from asserting in NH rights which would be denied him in the state of his residence Rights created by VT statue are entitled to protection even when they’re brought in a NH court, without this, the Vermont law would be impaired Holding: No sufficient public policy reason for NH not to enforce VT law Want to help employees by giving them a speedy remedy without proof of fault, and want to help employers by giving them a certain level of liability Reasoning: Just because Vermont legislation doesn’t conform to NH law doesn’t mean that it’s obnoxious to NH public policy to give effect to Vermont statue Only VT residents are involved – no subversion of NH policy to give a VT remedy to VT company/residents, and even though NH law is impaired by applying VT law, doesn’t matter because no citizens of NH to be protected Bradford Electric does business in NH, so no unfair surprise really that there would be injury there (unlike TX which had no contacts with transaction) Gerling Global Reinsurance v. Gallager – DUE PROCESS Facts: Insurance companies with affiliations with German insurers who issued policies to Holocaust victims before 1945 sent subpoenas requesting policy info Holding: Forum can’t apply its law because there were insufficient contacts, and the subject matter was improper to allow the reporting None of the insured parties issued policies to Holocaust victims before 1945, and only one of the insurance companies existed at that time, but the companies are now affiliates of German insurance groups Rule: A state must have a significant contact or aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, so that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair. Look at both subject matter and individualized contacts with the state The parent companies aren’t registered to do business in FL, no offices or employees in the state, no contacts with FL except some policy beneficiaries may reside in the sate Can do investigations to decide if the insurer is fit to do business in the sate, but this isn’t the statute’s purpose Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts: Leased mineral rights from 30,000 people, set royalty % Directory: outlines -> Conflicts%20of%20Laws outlines -> Adil Khan Contracts Midterm outline- waldron outlines -> Remedies for breach of promise (1) The Interests Protected outlines -> Basic Process for Assessing Damages: 97 Select interest that deserves vindication 97 a. Restitution 97 outlines -> Chapter Five: Written Documents 1 Unsigned Documents 1 outlines -> Cases and Materials on Contracts outlines -> College of Science and Health outlines -> Evidence outline outlines -> 2. Act, Omission, Status or Circumstances 4 Consequences and Causation 8 Introduction to Mens Rea and Intent 10 Levels of Fault 11 Conflicts%20of%20Laws -> Choice of law: the basic model Download 381.41 Kb. Share with your friends:
|