KS arguments to apply own law would be efficient to apply a single law and that is doing biz in KS, so interest in regulating (even if most activity and ∆ parties aren’t there) SC Under test, not enough interest for KS to apply its own law. Allstate – Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman (1988) pg 422 [Scalia] Court says that a forum state can apply its SOL even without a connection procedural. – Ironic, that fed courts have to apply the State’s SOL, even if the state says it is procedural. Also says that it is not enough that a state misconstrue the law of another state rather, the misconstruction must contradict the law of the state which is – clearly established. No one is to supervise COL. You can ask for certification of law by different state. Obligation to Provide a Forum (1951) pg 367 [Black] Huges and Fetter WI and Ill accident, WI court dismisses (on merits!) saying won’t π ∆, entertain another state’s wrongful death statute. SC refusal to apply another state’s laws is a violation of FFC. – Distinguishes from AK Packers hasn’t chosen to apply own – law, but made itself a disinterested forum. Note: state can’t restrict application of its statute to w/in the state (1953) pg 374 FF&C does not compel the forum state to use the period of this was not altered by limitation of a foreign state; Hughes. This isn’t about discriminating between in and out of state accidents. + Jurisdiction Re-examined in light of Choice of Law General just bc Kansas has jx on basis of doing business, that is not enough Shutts – for COL. Should COL have any impact on whether you TAKE jx? Doctrinal answer is no, but there is a concern that if you allow jx, parties will get a COL they may not have expected. leading case Hanson, SC sees as separate questions. Set of Q’s for jud jx on connection of and the forum. ∆ In US, injury not enough must also be some – purposeful conduct by the ∆. Set of Q’s for COL.
KS arguments to apply own law would be efficient to apply a single law and that ∆ is doing biz in KS, so interest in regulating (even if most activity and parties aren’t there) SC – Under Allstate test, not enough interest for KS to apply its own law. Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman (1988) pg 422 [Scalia] Court says that a forum state can apply its SOL even without a connection – procedural. Ironic, that fed courts have to apply the State’s SOL, even if the state says it is procedural. Also says that it is not enough that a state misconstrue the law of another state – rather, the misconstruction must contradict the law of the state which is clearly established. No one is to supervise COL. You can ask for certification of law by different state. Obligation to Provide a Forum Huges and Fetter (1951) pg 367 [Black] WI π and ∆, Ill accident, WI court dismisses (on merits!) saying won’t entertain another state’s wrongful death statute. SC – refusal to apply another state’s laws is a violation of FFC. Distinguishes from AK Packers – hasn’t chosen to apply own law, but made itself a disinterested forum. Note: state can’t restrict application of its statute to w/in the state (1953) pg 374 FF&C does not compel the forum state to use the period of limitation of a foreign state; this was not altered by Hughes. This isn’t about discriminating between in and out of state accidents. + Jurisdiction Re-examined in light of Choice of Law General Shutts – just bc Kansas has jx on basis of doing business, that is not enough for COL. Should COL have any impact on whether you TAKE jx? Doctrinal answer is no, but there is a concern that if you allow jx, parties will get a COL they may not have expected. Hanson, leading case SC sees as separate questions. Set of Q’s for jud jx on connection of ∆ and the forum. In US, injury not enough – must also be some purposeful conduct by the ∆. Set of Q’s for COL.