1. Conflict of laws
Today we will talk about Conflict of Laws, which occurs when the laws of two or more different jurisdictions could apply to a particular dispute or legal issue.
This is a particular issue in the American legal system, since as we have seen, as well as federal law, each state has its own laws, so each state is a separate jurisdiction.
That means that the laws on state issues such as contract and tort law vary between states. For each state, other states are “foreign” jurisdictions.
VOC; to have jurisdiction (=the power to hear a case)
a jurisdiction: a geographical area containing a defined legal authority

2. A)Concurrent jurisdiction
I will consider this in a slightly different order than it is in the handout.
The first major area of interest is concurrent jurisdiction, which we know means that two or more jurisdictions have jurisdiction over the case.

3. 1. State or federal?
State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over
most federal questions
all diversity of citizenship cases
We have seen that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over
most federal questions
all diversity of citizenship cases (case arising under state law, parties from different states, more than 75,000 claimed in damages)
Initially it is the plaintiff who shapes the lawsuit.
The plaintiff chooses what claims to bring > sometimes this can determine whether federal jurisdiction is possible. In some cases the P can choose to make a claim under federal law which would allow access to federal court, or only under state law which would not allow access to federal court unless there was diversity of citizenship.
Even if there is potential federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff also decides where to file suit > most cases where federal jurisdiction is possible, the P can also choose to file suit in state court if he prefers
In addition to that, we have seen that personal jurisdiction means that a plaintiff may also have a choice of states in which he could file suit. > image
This means that the plaintiff may have the opportunity to indulge in forum shopping which means he tries to choose a court which will be sympathetic to his claim.
What about the defendant?

4. Removal and remand
If the plaintiff files in state court the defendant can file a notice of removal to federal court
Must cite valid grounds for federal subject-matter jurisdiction
If the plaintiff files in state court the defendant can file a notice of removal to federal court > the logic behind this is that the benefits of choosing a federal court should be available to both parties.
If we believe that federal courts may be better suited to deciding questions of federal law, or
We believe that in DOC cases, that they give more protection to parties from other states,
Then logically the defendant as well as the plaintiff should be allowed to access those benefits.
However, in order to remove a case, the defendant must show something. What?
Must cite valid grounds for federal subject-matter jurisdiction > a case can only be removed if there was concurrent jurisdiction to start with – fq or DOC
If the federal court decides that there are no grounds for federal jurisdiction, they will remand (remit/send) the case back to the state court. > federal judges tend to err or the side of caution, since if they make an error it may lead to years of useless litigation

5. 2. Supplemental jurisdiction
Usually federal courts cannot hear claims which are not part of their limited jurisdiction.
But sometimes a single event gives rise to both state and federal claims.
If a federal court has valid subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim
it may assert supplemental jurisdiction over other claims which are related to the original claim
even though the additional claims are governed purely by state law.
As we just said, usually federal courts cannot hear claims which are not part of their limited jurisdiction.
Specifically that means that they can’t hear claims arising under state law if the defendant is claiming less than £75,000
But sometimes a single event gives rise to both state and federal claims. > claims falling under federal jurisdiction, claims arising purely under state law
In this case, the plaintiff can choose to file both – a state law claim and claim under federal jurisdiction in relation to the same incident.
In this case, an exception applies, based on supplemental jurisdiction.
If a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over one claim
it may assert supplemental jurisdiction over other claims which are related to the original claim (arise from the same event)
even though the additional claims are governed by state law.

6. Examples
Byron from Iowa is arrested by Keats, an Iowa police officer. Byron claims Keats used excessive force and sues him under a federal civil rights statute.
Byron also files a state law claim for battery, arsing from the arrest.
Can the federal court hear both claims?
It emerges that Keats was an old friend of Byron and owes him $500. Byron asserts a third claim for the debt as part of the action. Can the federal court hear it?
Byron from Iowa is arrested by Keats, an Iowa police officer. Byron claims Keats used excessive force and sues him under a federal civil rights statute. > is there federal jurisdiction here?
Byron also files a state law claim for battery, arsing from the arrest. > if this was filed alone would there be federal jurisdiction? > no, no diversity, not a FQ
Can the federal court hear both claims? Yes, it has subject-matter jurisdiction here, so it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this related state law claim.
Nonetheless it is not obliged to hear the case >, if it feels that a state court is a more appropriate venue, it can dismiss the claim or remand it to state court.
B) No, here this claim is not clearly linked or related to the original claim, it will not raise the same at trial, so SJ does not apply.
(if ask > same evidence, same witnesses, same or similar legal questions)

7. 3. Refusal to hear a claim
Even if a federal court has concurrent jurisdiction over a claim, it may refuse to hear it:
forum non conveniens
abstention doctrines
Finally, a reminder that, even if a federal court has concurrent jurisdiction over a claim, it may refuse to hear it:
It may do this based on the principle of forum non conveniens >taking into account the circumstances there is another court with jurisdiction to hear the case which would be a more appropriate venue. (Location issue – if it’s a federal court, the case would usually be heard by a federal court in another state or district)
Abstention doctrines: in some limited cases, federal courts will defer to state court jurisdiction,
for example a federal court will usually not rule on the constitutionality of a state law until the state courts have had an opportunity to apply it in the plaintiff’s case > allows the state court an opportunity to interpret the statute in a way which does not violate the US constitution

8. B. Choice of law
The second issue is the choice of law to be applied in the court

9. 1. State or federal law?
In diversity of citizenship cases, federal courts hear cases arising under state law.
Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins (1938)
In diversity cases:
federal courts must apply state statutes and case law (substantive law)
however federal procedural law applies
In Diversity of Citizenship cases, federal courts hear cases arising under state law.
It has always been clear that in these cases they must apply state statute law. (NOT ON POWERPOINT)
But what if there is no state statute law? Most state contract, tort, property and probate law is common law, judge-made law.
What should the federal court do then?
PRESENTATION
Problems?
What if there is no state statute and no state case law?

10. certify a question to the state’s highest court
If a case raises an unresolved issue of state law, federal judges must:
reach a decision based on what the highest state court would decide, or
certify a question to the state’s highest court
If a case raises an unresolved issue of state law, federal judges must:
reach a decision based on what the highest state court would decide > research, look at lower court judgments, look at judgments in similar cases, and from that divine what the state supreme court would do
certify a question to the state’s highest court > formally request the state court to deliberate the legal issue and give its interpretation, which the federal court then applies
In some cases, if the point of law is particularly important for the state, the fed court may invoke an abstention doctrine and defer to state court jurisdiction.

11. 2. Which state’s law?
State courts do not always apply the law of the forum state
State’s “choice of law” rules vary:
lex loci / lex fori
“interest analysis”
“most significant relationship” test
Federal courts hearing state law cases follow the “choice of law” rules of the forum state
Finally, there is one more question. Federal courts apply state law in diversity cases – but which state’s law???
State courts do not always apply the law of the forum state ie the state in which they sit (Texas courts don’t always apply Texas law)
Obviously, usually they do, but sometimes they won’t.
State’s “choice of law” rules vary:
One approach is to apply the Substantive law of the state where event that gave rise to the litigation took place – where the contract was signed or the car crash happened – the law of the forum state, state where court is on procedural matters
Another is “interest analysis” > interest of each affected state in applying its law to the case is weiged (canoe accident if asked)
OR The “most significant relationship” test dtermines which state has the most significant relationship to the case
What about federal courts hearing diversity of citizenship cases? Which are State law cases
Federal courts hearing state law cases follow the “choice of law” rules of the forum state
So if a Texas state court would apply Louisiana law in a contract case, if a federal court in Texas hears the case under its diversity jurisdiction, it will also apply Louisiana state law

12. 3. Enforcement
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.“ (Article IV)
Finally a word about enforcement
The Full Faith and credit clause means that the acts, records and judgments of one state should be given full force in every other state.
This prevents defendants simply moving state to avoid the consequences of a judgment, or re-litigating the same issue a second time in a different state.
This is a complicated area – there are public policy exceptions, but the rules are different for acts and for judgments > you don’t need to know this area in detail, just keep the main principle in mind.