Conflicts of Law Mini Outline

Constitutional Limits of COL States law is constitutional if state has significant contacts with parties and an interest in outcome Full Faith & Credit to other forum ruling, unless: (Lack of Jurisdiction, finality, Judgment was not on the merits) Choice of Law Theories VESTED RIGHTS where the Parties RIGHTS vested. In MI rejected for TORTS, criticized for K but still used. Torts law of place where injury occurred; K Law where K was made or to be performed; Procedure = Law of the forum GOVERNMENT INTEREST choice on law made on each issue of the case, by doing the following: Identify POLICIES for each state See if state has INTEREST in case based on policy If true conflict Defer to Forums law MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP (Majority approach) MI adopted for contracts, relevant for torts. Apply the law with the most significant relationship to the occurrence or transaction and the parties Look to relevant policies of the forum/other state, protection of justified expectation and certainty/predictability/uniformity of result ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN TESTED

MI Conflicts Laws MI TORTS Sutherland Test - MI law applies unless other states interest supersedes, if both have interest MI wins MI CONTRACTS: MI and many states traditionally held that the place where the contract was entered was the law to be applied. MI has moved pass this. RULE: MI general rule is that the law of the place having the most SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP with the matter in dispute will be the law applied. To that end you look to a number of factors (but these are the main 5): (1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiation of the K; the place of performance; (4) location of the subject matter of the K; and (5) domicile, place of incorporation, organization of the parties. Contracts dealing with Land: RULE Where land is located
MI PROCEDURE General RULE: (Sutherland Test) MI Procedural law applies unless other states interest supersedes (almost never)Statute of Limitations: If both P and cause of action outside of MI, use SHORTER SoL Personal Property Law of decedents domicile, unless person is living (apply law where property is situated) Corporations Law of state of incorporation for internal affairs, Sutherland test for external affairs Principles that may preclude Application of Foreign Law Public Policy exclusion violated forum states fundamental public policy Penal and tax laws always go to state where issue arose Renvoi apply whole law v. substantive law only? ON MBE apply substantive law of other state only. Lex Fori (NOT MI) - Forum law applies Situations tested have generally been similar. For Torts: Accident happens in State X. For some reason, or another, Suit is brought in MI. Michigan law and State X law differ in a substantial way. Out of state party (usually the Defendant) argues that State X should be applied. In state party argues Michigan law should be applied. Furthermore, State X has significant interest for its law. But MI has significant interest in applying this law. You need to point out both interest on both sides, then you apply Sutherland Test because Sutherland says that MI wins when there are both significant interest on both sides. For Contracts: Similar sort of thing. MI law differs from state law on some issue. Plaintiff argues that MI law should be applied. Other party for some reason argues that State X law should be applied. The difference is you don't apply Sutherland. You apply the significant factors. Just point them out. Say who you thinks should win. Usually it is a toss up. Other times, there are more significant factors that imply one state's laws should be applied over the other. Don't forget that some factors may be more important than others. E.G, both parties could be MI citizens or corporations, and the contract could have been entered in MI, while performance could have occurred in State X. Here is a prime case for why MI law should be applied, but notice all the witnesses may be in State X so that may make the place of performance more important. I think what is important is that you just apply the law and give reasonable reasons for your conclusion.