Also known as: conflict of laws · private international law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The body of rules that determines the effect given when a case has a significant relationship to more than one jurisdiction. These rules address judicial jurisdiction, the effect of foreign judgments, and choice of law questions arising from multistate contacts.
David Dawson, a Colorado resident, sued Dillon Energy, a Texas corporation, in federal court in Colorado for breach of a supply agreement performed partly in Wyoming. The federal judge applied Colorado substantive law, including Colorado choice-of-law rules that pointed to Wyoming law on the performance issue, rather than inventing a uniform federal contract rule.
Damian Decker, a New York plaintiff, filed a diversity action in federal court in Delaware against Duarte Shipping over a maritime supply contract. The court followed Delaware choice-of-law rules to decide whether New York or Delaware substantive law governed the damages calculation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dominic Drake sued Duffy Construction in federal court in Massachusetts after a construction accident. The defendant moved to dismiss for improper service under state rules. The court applied the federal rule on service because it directly conflicted with state practice and was valid under the Rules Enabling Act.
Denise Donovan, a Michigan franchisee, was sued by Dover Bank in Florida federal court over a franchise agreement. The court assessed whether the defendant's contacts with Florida satisfied due process minimum contacts before applying Florida long-arm rules to the contract dispute.
Dolores Diaz contracted with a German shipyard to tow an oil rig across the Atlantic. After damage occurred, she sued in Florida despite a London forum clause. The court enforced the clause after weighing the parties' expectations and the clause's reasonableness under federal maritime law.
Darrell Duncan sued in federal court in New York on a claim that would be time-barred under New York law but timely under the law of the place of injury. The court applied the New York limitations period because it would determine the outcome of the litigation.
It covers judicial jurisdiction over persons and occurrences outside the state, the effect given to foreign judgments, and choice-of-law rules that select which state's substantive law applies to multistate facts.
Questions about whether an interest in land has been transferred by operation of law are governed by the law of the situs of the land, so a court deciding title to property located in one state applies that state's local property rules even when a foreign judgment is involved.
No. A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits because those rules are treated as substantive for Erie purposes.
The court applies state substantive law, including the state's conflict-of-laws rules, whenever no valid federal rule or statute supplies the governing standard and the issue would affect the outcome of the litigation.
The characterization of a thing as movable or immovable is determined by the law selected under the forum's general choice-of-law methodology rather than by rigid situs or contracting rules.
…is a customary elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 56, Introductory Note (1971) (hereafter Restatement). This recognition leads to the conclusion that in order to justify an exercise of jurisdiction in rem , the basis for jurisdiction…