Also known as: choice-of-law doctrine · choice of law doctrines · choice of law · conflict of laws
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A body of rules that determines which jurisdiction's substantive law governs a dispute with contacts in more than one state. Courts apply these rules to select the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the issue or to follow statutory directives that validate acts under alternative connecting factors such as place of execution or domicile.
Cobalt Energy, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State A, sues Canyon Construction, a State B firm, in federal court in State A over a construction contract performed partly in State B. The court applies State A's choice of law rules to decide whether State A or State B substantive law governs the breach claim.
Charles Cunningham purchases land in State B from Christine Castro under a contract negotiated in State A that selects State A law. When a neighboring owner asserts an easement based on long use in State B, the court weighs the most significant relationship factors to determine whether State A or State B law governs the easement claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cameron Cruz, domiciled in State A at the time, executes a will before a notary in Switzerland while maintaining an apartment there. After moving to State B where he dies, the probate court applies the statute allowing validation under the law of the place of execution or place of abode at execution to uphold the will.
Crown Pharmaceuticals, headquartered in State A, is sued in federal court in State A by a plaintiff injured in State B. The court follows State A's conflict rules to select which state's substantive tort law applies to the product liability claim.
Curtis Cannon sues in federal court in State A on a state-law claim that would be time-barred under State A law but timely under State B law. The court applies State A's statute of limitations as the outcome-determinative rule that must be followed in diversity.
Christopher Collins files a diversity action in federal court in State A and serves process under the federal rule allowing service by mail. The defendant moves to dismiss for improper service under stricter State A requirements. The court applies the federal rule because it directly conflicts with and displaces the state practice.
A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits. Those rules are treated as substantive under Erie and therefore control the selection of which state's law governs the claim.
Supporting sources
The Restatement directs courts to evaluate the factors in section 6, giving special weight in property cases to protection of justified expectations because parties typically consult counsel and form reliance interests before transferring interests in land or chattels.
Supporting sources
A will is valid if executed in compliance with the Code's formalities or if execution satisfies the law of the place of execution, the testator's domicile, place of abode, or nationality at the time of execution or death.
Supporting sources
…particular problem for which it is used." Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra , at 108; Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, pp. 154-183 (1942). It is true that both the Enabling Act and the Erie rule say, roughly, that federal courts are to apply state "substantive" law and federal "procedural" law, but from…