dismiss it under the theory that illinois law applies and there is no extraterritorial jurisdiction under illinois dram shop law for injuries occurring outside the state of illinois that's the case in a nutshell i think before we talk about the two specific arguments though that we raised in our brief i think you have to step back a little bit and think about the analytical framework of what brings us here in the nature of dram shop liability we know that prior to the twenty first amendment at least you could not sell or consume alcohol in the united states twenty first amendment allows the states authority to troll the sale of liquor in its own state we cited case it approved which is no authority to control sales in other states we believe that the effort to use iowa law is a use of extraterritorial regulatory control of iowa law on a resident in a corporation in the illinois and someone who is licensed in the illinois this is not a true tort case when we think of towards someone assaults me someone runs into my car or some statutorily created by the illinois legislature legislature and as a result of a comprehensive legislative approach to liability of dream shops or liquor as a result we have dr liability that brings us here today and it is the stance you as passed by the a lot of the legislature that we are asking illinois courts to apply to the person there follow the illinois regulatory that doesn't talk about personal injury generally which i judge negate referred to in his federal decision it actually says the rights and liabilities of party with respect to an issue in torque are termed by the local law of the state with respect to that issue that has the most significant relation and then it talks about the factors the place where the injury occur wall with all due respect i don't think you have n y c this is a simple conflict of law common law for this is a case with this legislation in two different states and the illinois legislature is already stepped up and spoken comprehensively as to how we think you should be applied it's actually a strict liability so the standard of proof is less but because of that the policy in the form should be to follow the legislative policy that has been passed by invited officials the relevant policies of interested states we know illinois is the interested state in this case and so illinois law should apply protection of justified expectations we think about him term operating rocker and brewing company thinking i can be sued here and incorporated here i really don't have anything to do with violence the fact that it tortfeasor decides to do something here please cross the bridge the real wrongful act in this case is actually the sale of the liquor that's what triggers liability in this case naturally there is going to be injury but in terms of what degree to do wrong the sugar alcohol that's what triggers the this so called wrongful act in this case is the basic policies underlying the law what better do the state legislature the illinois state legislature to determine the basic policies underlying the law the n file bankruptcy now we're going to let the creditors sue in illinois against illinois because he knows when there's a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating gambling then see that a similar example used in that case as we said in our here today because of the appeal filed by mr with me he makes no to the fact that he thinks that there's no remedy in iowa as well but he's missing a major point  alone well first off i would make note that i don't believe the draft on actually regulates the sale of the hall it is put in place to protect the innocent victims who are injured by actions from people who receive too much alcohol from a place so i'll see if they're actually regulating business the cases that they cited in their briefs all have to do with the retort pricing schemes of alcohol being sold elsewhere and immediate examples and as far as the organ is regarding the car school i'd like to point out that like i said i don't believe the branch of laws are put in place to protect the territories they are put in place to protect the innocent victims of these injuries it does not again i'd like to point out that in one of the cases the healing case of the reverses of your institution that they're talking about the commerce clause violation and then violation very connecticut was trying to determine the prices that could be utiliz actually assault somebody there is a direct connection if you're there in the jurisdiction injuring our people you should be held liable under our laws i understand that and that was a point in my argument from the beginning this is separated from this because  pardons were located in the most significant factor obviously is ricco could now move and so the illinois factor would apply in that case and finally their relationship where is a relationship of a party setter the plaintiff was drink if there was a fight outside their recall had nothing to do and no relationship with this plaintiff in the state of iowa it's only relationship was in illinois because it's the only place they could act i don't think this idea that somehow i am protected from recall goes across state lines first thought if there is nothing in the cases that support that i think it's just like saying it's ok to drive in iowa if you're sixteen you have to be eighteen in illinois but the sixteen year old driver's fine illinois interesting so they it i was not attempting to control the sale of alcohol in illinois i strongly dispute that in illinois to campus approximately seventy five thousand dollars when i'm going to business to open up my tab or i know that if effort to control the sale in service of alcohol in illinois where you know in one of the courts decided to allow iowa the legislative scheme to be applied to go in dram shop it's not fair it's not what