This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Conflict of Laws Outlines

Conflict Of Laws Outline

Updated Conflict Of Laws Notes

Conflict of Laws Outlines

Conflict of Laws

Approximately 45 pages

This outline covers two major areas in conflict of laws: Recognitions of Judgments and Choice of Law as taught by Professor John C. Harrison using the textbook published by West. Two of the students who contributed to the outline received an A in the course.

The outline covers both the historical state of conflicts law, as well as significant changes that have occurred in some states. The outline covers the evolution of state law, as well as the views of various legal scholars (e.g., Currie, ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Conflicts of Law – Prof. John C.Harrison

UVA Law – Fall 2016

General Principles/Themes

  • Laycock’s Article

    • States are equal: Horizontal federalism, no state law is supreme to another’s

    • States are territorial: presumed from pre-founding that they are fundamentally geographic

  • Kramer vs. Currie Interest Analysis

  • (Un)Certainty

    • Ex ante: what are legal consequences of decisions/actions

    • Ex post: once in court, which law applies

  • Finality: We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.

  • Theme: 1738 is dynamic conformity (Allen v. McCurry)

  • NY approach: Conduct regulation (place of conduct) v. loss allocation (flexible system from Edwards). Tort law is generally loss-allocating, but also is designed to incentivize conduct--consider primary purpose of the law. For statutes, look to legislative history and context.

  • Legal Realism

    • First Stage: Courts hide behind rules and don’t explain why they are really deciding the case the way they are.

    • Second Stage: what they are doing that they aren’t saying (or what they should be doing) is something else (for conflicts, interest analysis). E.g., Posner: common law is providing economically efficient outcomes


I. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Other Systems (_Res, _Preclusion)

Terminology

  • Review:

    • Direct Review: e.g., 4th Cir. review of case from E.D.V.A.

    • Collateral Review (collateral attack): e.g., Court has to review some aspect of Case 1 to adjudicate Case 2

      • Rule: Generally barred by rules of finality

      • Exception: Jurisdictional attack. May not argue that Case 1 was incorrectly decided, but may argue that court lacked jurisdiction to decide Case 1.

  • Preclusion:

    • Claim Preclusion (res judicata): Claim litigated to conclusion cannot be litigated again

      • Operates in both directions:

        • Barred: If D wins P can’t sue again (terminology – D is barred)

        • Merger: If P wins P’s old right to sue has merged with the judgment and doesn’t exist anymore (see Baker v. General Motors open issue)

      • Claim Splitting: must bring the entire claim

      • NOTE: depends on definition of claims (Choice of Law)

    • Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel): issue litigated cannot be re-litigated by that party

      • Determination on an issue on one claim affects all claims

    • Traditional Rule of Mutuality: Only operates against those who have litigated the issue

      • Some states allow for nonmutual preclusion, for either or both issue and claim preclusion

  • Procedure

    • Registering judgments: some states allow you to register judgments from another state to have them enforced in the the state

    • Suits: some states require you to file suit to enforce a judgment from another state in the state

Full Faith and Credit and Its Limitations

  • {

  • RULE: both claim preclusion and issue preclusion have preclusive effects in other jurisdictions (federal or state) as they did in the jurisdiction where the claim/issue was decided (see Baker v. General Motors rule 1)

  • Judgments are final regardless of whether they are correct (Fauntleroy)

    • But see Jurisdictional Challenges: Presumption that a second court may not inquire into jurisdiction if (1) the issue of jurisdiction or (2) the underlying facts necessary to determine jurisdiction were litigated (Durfee).

      • May be rebutted by showing a reason for attack specific to this case (e.g., if state court decides it has jurisdiction over a patent case) (see Kalb)

        • But see Matsushita: Court can have jurisdiction to assess strength of a claim (e.g. to evaluate fairness of a release agreement) that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate.

  • Who is bound by preclusion?

    • Parties to the case

    • Those in privity with parties to the case (Yarborough: standard is whether their interests were represented)

  • Scope: enforcement –courts may not be bound by enforcement laws (e.g., SoL for enforcement) of the issuing state (see Baker v. General Motors, McElmoyle v. Cohen)

  • }

  • Section 1738 Full Faith and Credit Statute: “Courts must treat the judgments of another state’s courts the same way courts of the issuing state would treat it.”

    • RULE: both claim preclusion and issue preclusion have preclusive effects in other jurisdictions (federal or state) as they did in the jurisdiction where the claim/issue was decided

      • NOTE: Did not choose Privileges and Immunities Clause method, which would have required VA to treat MD judgment as VA treats VA judgments. Instead, VA must treat MD judgment as MD treats MD judgment.

        • About predictability.

    • State Courts Only: 1738 only applies to the judgments of state courts.

      • State Administrative Agencies: Not courts within the meaning of 1738, so even if a state gives preclusion to their decisions, other states aren’t obliged to apply that state’s preclusion laws to the administrative proceeding – they are free to do what they want.

      • Federal Courts: Their judgments are not covered by 1738. Preclusion on their judgments is federal common law.

        • They do have to follow preclusion laws of another state that issued its own judgment

    • NOTE: Enacted under Congress’ powers from A4 Full Faith and Credit clause

  • Article IV: policy

    • Full Faith and Credit Clause: Ensures states will mutually recognize each others’ decrees. Can be read to include either ex ante predictability or ex post predictability – either parties know where the decree was issued (ex ante – FF&C Statute) or where they are being sued (ex post – not chosen).

    • Privileges and Immunity Clause: about anti-discrimination and ex post predictability. Prevents out-of-staters from being treated differently under the law than state citizens.

  • Fauntleroy v. Lum (1908 p. 523) Incorrect Judgments Are Final

    • FACTS: P and D made options contract in MS which is illegal and void in MS as gambling. Arbitrator misapplies MS law and gives P award. D doesn’t comply with award, thinking it’s unenforceable in MS. P tags D in MO w/ jurisdiction and MO enforces the award (also misapplying MS law). P files to record judgment in MS, which...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Outlines.