Wed. Mar. 26

1
Wed. Mar. 26
2
Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law
3
Home Ins. Co. v Dick (US 1930)
4
article 5545 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes

• No person, firm, corporation, association or
  combination of whatsoever kind shall enter into
  any stipulation, contract, or agreement, by
  reason whereof the time in which to sue thereon
  is limited to a shorter period than two years.
  And no stipulation, contract, or agreement for
  any such shorter limitation in which to sue shall
  ever be valid in this State.

5

• Dick urges that article 5545 of the Texas law is
  a declaration of its public policy and that a
  state may properly refuse to recognize foreign
  rights which violate its declared policy.
  Doubtless, a state may prohibit the enjoyment by
  persons within its borders of rights acquired
  elsewhere which violate its laws or public
  policy and, under some circumstances, it may
  refuse to aid in the enforcement of such rights.
  But the Mexican corporation never was in Texas
  and neither it nor the garnishees invoked the aid
  of the Texas courts or the Texas laws. The
  Mexican corporation was not before the court. The
  garnishees were brought in by compulsory process.
  Neither has asked favors. They ask only to be let
  alone.

6

• The statute is not simply one of limitation. It
  does not merely fix the time in which the aid of
  the Texas courts may be invoked. Nor does it
  govern only the remedies available in the Texas
  courts. It deals with the powers and capacities
  of persons and corporations. It expressly
  prohibits the making of certain contracts.

7
NY one year statute of limitations is bound up
with NY contract actionCan a Texas court
entertaining such an action apply its two year
procedural limitations period?SCt has not
answered this question
8
Parties to a NY contract include a provision
demanding in-hand service for any suit under the
contract this is valid under NY lawCan a
Texas court entertaining such an action use its
own service rule?Yes
9
14th Amendment

• nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
  liberty, or property, without due process of law

10
Full Faith and Credit
11

• 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.

12
Bradford Elect. Light Co. v Clapper(US 1932)-
Clapper citizen of VT worked for Bradford (VT
corp with principal place of business in VT)-
Clapper sent to NH to take care of some fuses -
electrocuted- administrator chooses to sue in
NH- NH allows election of common law or workers
comp- VT requires you to waive out of workers
comp in beginning of employment relationship- NH
ct applied NH law- SCt reversed
13
Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc.
Commn (US 1939)
14

• Although Massachusetts has an interest in
  safeguarding the compensation of Massachusetts
  employees while temporarily abroad in the course
  of their employment, and may adopt that policy
  for itself, that could hardly be thought to
  support an application of the full faith and
  credit clause which would override the
  constitutional authority of another state to
  legislate for the bodily safety and economic
  protection of employees injured within it. Few
  matters could be deemed more appropriately the
  concern of the state in which the injury occurs,
  or more completely within its power.

15

• But the Court was careful to point out that there
  was nothing in the New Hampshire statute, the
  decisions of its courts, or in the circumstances
  of the case to suggest that reliance on the
  provisions of the Vermont statute, as a defense
  to the New Hampshire suit, was obnoxious to the
  policy of New Hampshire.Here, California
  legislation not only conflicts with that of
  Massachusetts providing compensation for the
  Massachusetts employee if injured within the
  state of California, but it expressly provides,
  for the guidance of its own commission and
  courts, that "no contract, rule or regulation
  shall exempt the employer from liability for the
  compensation fixed by this act." The Supreme
  Court of California has declared in its opinion
  in this case that it is the policy of the state,
  as expressed in its Constitution and Compensation
  Act, to apply its own provisions for
  compensation, to the exclusion of all others, and
  that "It would be obnoxious to that policy to
  deny persons who have been injured in this state
  the right to apply for compensation when to do so
  might require physicians and hospitals to go to
  another state to collect charges for medical care
  and treatment given to such persons."

16
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague(US 1981)
17

• Footnote 10 This Court has taken a similar
  approach in deciding choice of law cases under
  both the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith
  and Credit Clause. In each instance, the Court
  has examined the relevant contacts and resulting
  interests of the State whose law was applied.
  Although at one time the Court required a more
  exacting standard under the Full Faith and Credit
  Clause than under the Due Process Clause for
  evaluating the constitutionality of choice of law
  decisions, see Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial
  Accident Comm'n, 294 U. S. 532, 294 U. S. 549-550
  (1935) (interest of State whose law was applied
  was no less than interest of State whose law was
  rejected), the Court has since abandoned the
  weighing of interests requirement.

18

• 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.

19

• Prior to the advent of interest analysis in the
  state courts as the "dominant mode of analysis in
  modern choice of law theory," the prevailing
  choice of law methodology focused on the
  jurisdiction where a particular event occurred.
  See, e.g., Restatement of Conflict of Laws
  (1934). For example, in cases characterized as
  contract cases, the law of the place of
  contracting controlled the determination of such
  issues as capacity, fraud, consideration, duty,
  performance, and the like. Hartford Accident
  Indemnity Co. v. Delta Pine Land Co., 292 U. S.
  143 (1934), can, perhaps, best be explained as an
  example of that period. That case, however, has
  scant relevance for today. It implied a choice of
  law analysis which, for all intents and purposes,
  gave an isolated event -- the writing of the bond
  in Tennessee -- controlling constitutional
  significance, even though there might have been
  contacts with another State (there Mississippi)
  which would make application of its law neither
  unfair nor unexpected.

20

• member of Minn workforce
• commuted to work there
• Allstate present and doing business in Minn
• Post-event move of plaintiff to Minn

21
Phillips Petroleum Co. v Shutts(US 1985)
22
We also give little credence to the idea that
Kansas law should apply to all claims because the
plaintiffs, by failing to opt out, evinced their
desire to be bound by Kansas law. Even if one
could say that the plaintiffs "consented" to the
application of Kansas law by not opting out,
plaintiff's desire for forum law is rarely, if
ever controlling. In most cases, the plaintiff
shows his obvious wish for forum law by filing
there.
23
We think that this is something of a "bootstrap"
argument. The Kansas class action statute, like
those of most other jurisdictions, requires that
there be "common issues of law or fact." But
while a State may, for the reasons we have
previously stated, assume jurisdiction over the
claims of plaintiffs whose principal contacts are
with other States, it may not use this assumption
of jurisdiction as an added weight in the scale
when considering the permissible constitutional
limits on choice of substantive law. It may not
take a transaction with little or no relationship
to the forum and apply the law of the forum in
order to satisfy the procedural requirement that
there be a "common question of law."
24
Sun Oil v Wortman (US 1988)
25
To constitute a violation of the Full Faith and
Credit Clause or the Due Process Clause, it is
not enough that a state court misconstrue the law
of another State. Rather, our cases make plain
that the misconstruction must contradict law of
the other State that is clearly established and
that has been brought to the court's attention.
26
P sues D under Pa law in a NY state courtP sues
D under Pa law in federal court in PaP sues D
under Pa law in a federal court in NY
27
Ferens v John Deere (US 1990)P (Pa) sues D
(Del/Ill) for Pa injury in federal court in
MissCase then transferred to Pa