Also known as: most significant relationship test · most significant relationship · most significant contacts test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law principle that selects the law of the state having the most significant relationship to the particular issue, the thing, and the parties under the factors listed in Restatement section 6. The principle applies to interests in things and to other multistate disputes. It requires evaluation of contacts and policies on an issue-by-issue basis rather than by rigid single-contact rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Praxis Leasing, a State K corporation, leased semi-trailers titled in State K to Horizon Freight, a State J trucking company that stored and dispatched the trailers from a hub in State L. State L judgment creditors sought to levy on the trailers in State L court. The court identified the contacts in each state and applied the local law of the state whose relationship to the trailers and the parties was most significant on the priority issue.
Atlas Capital, a State A partnership, purchased secured loans backed by artwork stored in a State B vault. After the vault operator entered receivership in State B, local creditors challenged Atlas's priority. The receivership court weighed the contacts and policies of States A, B, and C and applied the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the artwork and the parties on the priority issue.
Maurice Marshall, a New York resident, invited Megan Moore, also a New York resident, on a weekend drive to Ontario. An accident occurred in Ontario, where Ontario law barred guest passengers from recovering against hosts. The New York court examined the contacts and policies of each jurisdiction and applied New York law because New York had the most significant relationship to the parties and the guest-host issue.
Matthew Martinez, a U.S. citizen, alleged that U.S. officials directed his abduction and torture in Mexico. He sued in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court determined that the headquarters doctrine would displace the foreign-country exception only if planning in the United States created the injury, but the most significant relationship test still pointed to Mexican law for the substantive tort issues arising from the foreign harm.
Mason McCarthy and Maya Malik, Oklahoma domiciliaries, were involved in a car accident in Missouri while on a trip. Missouri law barred interspousal tort suits. The Oklahoma court rejected the mechanical place-of-the-wrong rule and applied the most significant relationship test, weighing the parties' domicile and the policies of each state to decide whether Oklahoma or Missouri law governed the immunity issue.
The traditional lex loci rule mechanically applies the law of the place where the wrong occurred or the thing is located. The most significant relationship test instead weighs multiple contacts and state policies on an issue-by-issue basis to identify the state with the strongest connection to the particular question.
Supporting sources
…of Laws Restatement in the field of torts. According to the principles there set out, "The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort" (Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, § 379[1]; also Introductory Note to Topic 1 of Chapter 9,…
…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
Yes. The test evaluates contacts and policies separately for each issue. One issue may be governed by the law of the situs while another issue in the same dispute is governed by the law of the parties' common domicile or the place of contracting.
Supporting sources
The test aggregates the contacts and treats them as if they were all located in a single state. This aggregation simplifies the analysis without changing the outcome when the substantive rules are the same.
Supporting sources
The clause is relevant to the justified-expectations factor but does not automatically control. The situs state's strong interest in regulating title and protecting subsequent purchasers often outweighs the clause when the land is located in that state and the dispute involves recording or priority rules.
Supporting sources
The court identifies all relevant contacts, including the place of titling, storage, operation, and the parties' domiciles, then determines which state has the most significant relationship to the specific issue of ownership or priority. No single contact, such as titling or forum location, is automatically controlling.
Supporting sources