1. Lecture 21 Mar. 28, 2018

2. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (US 1981)

3. The lesson from Dick and Yates, which found insufficient forum contacts to apply forum law, and from Alaska Packers, Cardillo, and Clay II, which found adequate contacts to sustain the choice of forum law, is that for a State's substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.

4. Phillips Petroleum Co. v Shutts (US 1985)

5. Sun Oil v Wortman (US 1988)

6. constitutional obligation to provide a forum

7. Hughes v Fetter (US 1951)

8. “We are called upon to decide the narrow question whether Wisconsin, over the objection raised, can close the doors of its courts to the cause of action created by the Illinois wrongful death act. Prior decisions have established that the Illinois statute is a ‘public act’ within the provision of Art. IV, § 1 that ‘Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts of every other State.’ It is also settled that Wisconsin cannot escape this constitutional obligation to enforce the rights and duties validly created under the laws of other states by the simple device of removing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent. “

9. Public Policy Exception?

10. Forum’s Shorter Statute of Limitations?

11. Forum Non Conveniens?

12. so what is wrong with what Wisconsin did?

13. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947) state courts may not discriminate against federal causes of action

14. can the state creating a cause of action prohibit sister-state courts from entertaining it?

15. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George (US 1914)

16. 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. For the rule is well settled that "where the provision for the liability is coupled with a provision for the special remedy, that remedy, that alone, must be employed." But that rule has no application to a case arising under the Alabama Code relating to suits for injuries caused by defective machinery. [I]t is … evident that the place of bringing the suit is not part of the cause of action -- the right and the remedy are not so inseparably united as to make the right dependent upon its being enforced in a particular tribunal. The cause of action is transitory, and, like any other transitory action, can be enforced "in any court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Alabama "

17. Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965)
Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga corporation
Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp statute even though Ga statute said action had to be brought before Ga Comp board
The rule of Tennessee Coal “has been eroded by the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers and Pacific Insurance.”

18. Pearson v NE Airlines (2d Cir
Pearson v NE Airlines (2d Cir. 1962) NYer killed in place crash in Mass Flight from NY to Boston Fed Ct in NY used Mass law, but not Mass damage limitation Claimed PPE applied Also claimed issue was procedural but could court have said there was NY interest in NY law applying even though Mass law could apply otherwise?

19. so what is left of George
so what is left of George? when can a state compel a sister state court to not take the state’s cause of action?

20. P(Ala) sues D(TN) in GA ct about accident in Ala Ala law has a limitation on jurisdiction to a specific Ala ct

21. If the GA ct respected the Ala limitation would that violate Hughes?

22. Privileges & Immunities Clause

23. Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination
State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity)
not a right to an elk hunting license…
Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination
and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end

24. Piper NH cannot make NH residence a requirement for membership in the NH bar - important right withheld? - substantial reasons for withholding? - does withholding bear a substantial relationship to achieving end?

25. CT has guest statute, New York does not
NY guest and host get into accident in CT
Guest sues host in CT court, which – using interest analysis – does not apply guest statute
Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

26. - What if NY guest sues CT host in CT state ct for accident in CT - ct resolves true conflict by applying NY law - any P&I violation? - ct resolves true conflict by applying CT guest statute - any P&I violation?

27. What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT state ct
CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT)
Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants?

28. Preclusion Res Judicata

29. P sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident D wins P sues again in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident P sues D in Cal. state ct for personal damages in connection with same accident

30. P sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident P wins, gets judgment for $100 P brings an action in Cal. state ct to collect the judgment P sues D in Cal. state ct for personal damages in connection with same accident

31. P sues D1 in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident D1 wins, P is determined to be contributorily negligent P sues D2 in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident

32. P1 sues D in Cal. state ct concerning property damages in connection with an accident P1 wins, D is determined to be negligent P2 sues D in Cal. state ct for property damages in connection with same accident

33. state courts’ obligations to respect sister state court judgments?

34. Article IV, Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

35. federal courts’ obligations to respect state court judgments?

36. 28 U.S. Code § The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. … Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

37. state courts’ obligation to respect federal court judgments?

38. Article VI … This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

39. Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)

40. The main argument urged by the defendant to sustain the judgment below is addressed to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws of Mississippi make dealing in futures a misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that sort, made without intent to deliver the commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be enforced by any court." The defendant contends that this language deprives the Mississippi courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. There, the New York statutes refused to provide a court into which a foreign corporation could come, except upon causes of action arising within the state, etc., and it was held that the State of New York was under no constitutional obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme court against its will. One question is whether that decision is in point.

41. The case quoted concerned a statute plainly dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the New York court. The statute now before us seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision. The Mississippi court in which this action was brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and would have to decide upon the validity of the bar if the suit upon the award or upon the original cause of action had been brought there. The words "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying that an action shall not be brought to enforce such contracts.

42. Assume the Mississippi statute had been jurisdictional
Would that have made a difference?

43. Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid
Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid. to out of state corporate Ps for suits on judgments rendered out of state between out of state corp’s where the original cause of action arose out of state

44. “Of course, a want of jurisdiction over either the person or the subject matter might be shown. But, as the jurisdiction of the Missouri court is not open to dispute, the judgment cannot be impeached in Mississippi even if it went upon a misapprehension of the Mississippi law.”

45. Does it make sense to have broad allowance for public policy in choice of law and to forbid it for recognition of judgments?