Also known as: most significant relationships · most significant contacts · significant relationship test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law principle that selects the state whose local law governs a particular issue because that state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence, thing, or parties under the factors listed in Restatement section 6. The principle evaluates contacts such as the place of injury or conduct, the parties' domiciles, and the location of any relationship between them, then weighs those contacts against policy considerations including protection of justified expectations, certainty of result, and the basic policies of the field of law. Application of the principle may lead a court to apply the law of the situs for issues involving immovables or to treat contacts in states with identical rules as if grouped in a single state.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State X contracts with a supplier whose performance occurs entirely in State Y. When a dispute arises over contract interpretation, the court determines that State Y has the most significant relationship to the issue because the place of performance and the parties' expectations center there, and therefore applies State Y local law.
Mohan Malhotra sells a valuable painting stored in State A to Mariam Mansour, who takes possession in State B. When a dispute arises over title, the court determines that State B has the most significant relationship to the transfer because the chattel was located there at the time of the sale and both parties formed their expectations in that state.
Marcus Mitchell and Michelle Murphy, both domiciled in State C, execute a deed conveying coastal land located in State D. A later dispute over whether the deed created an easement requires the forum court to apply the totality of State D law, including State D's choice-of-law rules, so that the outcome matches what a State D court would reach on the same facts.
After a car accident in State E involving spouses domiciled in State F, the court weighs the place of injury against the parties' common domicile and the policy interests of each state. It concludes that State F has the most significant relationship to the issue of interspousal immunity and therefore applies State F law.
A Mexican national sues a U.S. official for alleged misconduct occurring abroad. The court considers whether any state has a most significant relationship to the events and parties sufficient to support a federal common-law cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute, ultimately finding no such relationship that would justify creating a new substantive rule.
A California company sues a Texas defendant for negligently injuring its key employee in Texas. The court evaluates the place of injury, the parties' domiciles, and the policies underlying each state's tort rules, concluding that California has the most significant relationship to the issue of recoverable damages and therefore applies California law.
The traditional rule mechanically applies the law of the place of the wrong. The most significant relationship test instead weighs multiple contacts and the policies listed in section 6 to identify the state with the closest connection to the particular issue.
Supporting sources
For interests in immovables the situs ordinarily supplies the governing law because property rules protect local expectations and regulate local land use. The forum therefore applies the law that a court of the situs would apply, including its choice-of-law rules.
…government sued on a contract with a United States citizen, concededly legitimate by the locus of its making, performance, and most significant contacts, the forum would not apply its own substantive law of contracts. Since the act of state doctrine reflects the desirability of presuming the relevant transaction valid, the same result…
…of place of wrong . . . has receded in importance, and new approaches and concepts such as governmental interest analysis, most significant relationship
…of contracts: “(1) The validity of a contract is determined by the local law of the state with which the contract has its most significant relationship
…to a particular issue in tort shall be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship
Supporting sources
Contacts located in those states are treated as if grouped in a single state, so the court need not choose between them and may apply either state's identical rule without further analysis.
Supporting sources
Yes. Evidence that is not privileged under the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the communication is admitted unless admission would violate strong forum public policy.
Supporting sources