the parties to this case have presented this court with a fairly straightforward just choice of law question and that is will this court apply stature and acted by the washington legislature dispute between two residents of the state of washington over a transaction that incurred entirely in the state of washington or will physical choose to apply the civil rights law and support the product position that the rights that were allegedly infringed in fact were rights created by a washington statute by the washington legislature which has the authority as a state government to what is the product that is involved in this case the particular products were in terms of the personality it is just we're talking about in terms of the personality writes the infringements that took place of those right case when we're talking about the washington personality rights act we're not talking about what was left of what was left under the laws of the state of new york at the time that you died we're talking about statutory rights created by the washington legislature and those rights were created recognized just find the terms of transfer to find all within the washington statute and protected from infringement within the state of washington by washington statute i guess the question is if mr jimmy hendrix in new york die in new york did he have any property to created a bundle of rights when in the act it's a personality right statue and obviously that statute was not in effect when jimi hendrix died but they are  that the state of washington created like any other bundle of rights that a state has the power to create and it defines of the terms of those rights according to the terms of the statute and for that reason whatever new york law held at the time of jimmy's death has nothing to do with the operation of the washington statute with one small exception because  washington statute has an explicit provision in it that says there is a circumstance under which we will look to the law of the state where the person was domiciled at the time of death or one particular thing and that is when when a person dies in tested in another state then the personality rights created under the washington statute they're not extinguished they are going to pass t somebody but it says we will look to who in that other state would have received the other intangible property rights not this particular property right but the other intangible property rights and the reason for that is to keep the bundle of rights together if you contrast if you contrast the washington statutes say with the indiana and the california statutes they have provisions that say if it have two people someone other than the person who would receive the rest of the intangible property rights and what the washington statute says is that the court is to look to the state where the ability of the washington statute what we're talking about is the power of the state of washington to say we are going to recognize a property right in the state of washington here are the terms in which under which we are going to recognize that property right just like any other partner we're going to define it under the terms of our statute and we're going to decide how it can be passed and under what conditions of will be passed only if there is no up likable statute we go to six two which is the multi factor balancing test now the rest of the restatement and what comes behind it takes this multi factor balancing test and applies it everywhere the authors of the restatement could think of to say here's where we think the results are going to be under what we would call the normal case garden variety case no special interest case so you get back and you can find for example section six twenty two here is the general section on property you get back to you get back to even what these garden variety normal rules would be and in fact that's what the comm a local statute in the matter intended by the legislature even when a local lot of another state would be a political under the usual choice of law so even if in washington if this if we didn't have a personality right then we would look and see what would be the usual choice of law principle in the state of washington but when the legislature and max a piece of in other words if you go back and take a look and not reject the comments he does say that but it has to be taken in the context of what comments a and tell us about statutory directives and i think it's important to talk about his statutory directive sounds like a pretty formal term when you read it up in six one what the commas to the restatement say is it is very rare for a statute even worse between karen's one and parents to the legislature considered putting in the exact language that would have constituted a lot of a contrary and did not and that's pretty darn conclusive evidence that the legislature did not intend it gets personality rights act to the law to the contrary of the default statute exist each state has the right to determine which property rights it will recognize if that's the way our republican form of government works and the state of washington when it enacts and recognize property right has no obligation to use some other states definition of that right it's a right entirely created by the washington legislature fine for itself when applying to when as long as they're within their constitutional reach can decide which rights to recognize so and how is he going to use them he dies in new york he has personal property in washington and the personal property goes according to washington law is it in just a succession not new york is that what you're saying no i'm not saying it on this this statute is limited to one particular right and that is the right of personality but why wouldn't that that personal property that does something different so we have again we have a choice of line alice is what are we going to up which state's law are we going to apply and i believe that whether it's either statutory under the probate code or simply an analysis of development of a new probably right in the country in this and each has the ability to enact its own laws and define that right and they're not going to get together unless and until  they get together and somebody draws a model act and a bunch of states adopt that so that they take care of some reciprocity issues where the federal government says we're going to exercise our power under the commerce clause and we're going to next federal implications for how the hundreds of companies go about their business it says you don't have a right that these companies had but they had believed they had have been exercising for a period of time and as long as that order there's only one issue in this appeal the narrow issue before this court is whether a right of publicity existed and descended in new york in one thousand seven my judgment maintaining focus on that issue is key to understanding and resolving this appeal again in simple words did a right of publicity survive death in new york in one nine hundred seventy the issue turns on a conflict between washington and new york law given the nature of this very narrow issue a versus gore and footnote sixteen there are others read a little bit i could go on and on but while we do not doubt that congress had ample of already to enact such a policy for the entire nation that is and that's where the only rights he ha i think that answers judge ferguson's first question washington can legislate with regard to washington but it can't legislate with regard to new york it can't legislate worth regard to great britain and it can't legislate with regard to are authentic contends that the act is the statutory direct to apply washington law in determining whether post war implicity rights exist in all out of state did not contain such a directive authentic squirms to distinguish parents by arguing that karen's involved in the full property of the vault choice of law provision that doesn't applies with equal force in this case in the opinion that resides section thirty three forty four point one man does not state that californians post mor there is no statutory directive appellants cannot escape this court's holding in cannes it's virtually directly on point against the case you asked earlier whether wow washington goes it's of wonderful example of how a court properly applies conflict of law rules in washington a federal court exercising some mental jurisdiction applies to conflict laws of the form state washington is the former state and washington follows the under the washington rules we first looked for a true conflict the court concluded there was a true conflict in this case comes out one way under the new york law one where under washington law they then look for a statutory directive the court didn't find one here he said very specifically karen's doesn't allow one here a clear statutory directive the court may nevertheless determine the foreign state has such a dominant interest in resolving that in the issue that it can and that will it will and ignore traditional choice of that washington does not have that sort of a dominant interest here he found no easy answer to a directive and he found no dominant interest that says he should take apply the washington law even without a statutory directive his words very repeating in addition jimi hendrix was domiciled in new york at the time of this death and new york clearly has a greater interest in what property rights it chooses to reconcile recognizing its domiciliary as accordingly washington does not have a dominant interest in solving the problem presented in this case such that the court should ignore the traditional choice of law principles and apply the washington statute the point is that washington follows the race restatement and judge silly painstaking taking leave and thoughtfully applied in this case but he didn't stop there again in his order to forty one or two point two and two forty three finding no statutory directive or comment b range of application rationale while why the washington law should apply even turn to the most significant relationship test again he focused on the narrow issue did these rights survive seventy he goes on washington courts have repeatedly recognized the significant relationship the state has to issues regarding the descent of personal property in repeatedly following the traditional rule th one for a statutory directive looked even deeper in the comment be invalid out and determine that even though there wasn't a statutory directive there was no dominant interest event painstakingly applied the most significant relationship just like authentic cannot silly applied the washington conflict of law rules painstakingly carefully thoroughly and constitutionally and concluded that new york law applies to create a property right define it say how it's going to be transferred and then be inforced infringement of it without having to say oh every other states rule is going to that the dharmas hillary state controls when it comes to matters of property that has to do with adoption of uniform probably comes it has to do with common law decisions in each of the states but they're not required to and