Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): under the considerations provided in § 6.” Cosme, 632 N.E.2d at 835. First and most importantly, Massachusetts’ interests in this case substantially exceed those of Rhode Island. Robidoux is a Massachusetts resident who, after obtaining the approval of a Massachusetts administrative judge, received benefits from a Massachusetts workers’ compensation policy for an injury he suffered while employed by a Massachusetts company. Even where the injury occurs out of state, Massachusetts retains a significant interest in the extent to which a resident is compensated for a workplace injury. See, e.g., id. at 836; see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 26 (expressly authorizing paying benefits for injuries sustained outside the state); cf. Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 358 N.E.2d 416 (1976) (<HOLDING>). In addition to its interest in the amount of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (B) holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue (C) holding in a wifes suit against her husband stemming from a new york car accident that massachusetts law governed spousal immunity issue in part because the economic and social impact of this litigation will fall on massachusetts domiciliaries and a massachusetts insurer (D) holding that application of georgia law to dispute arising under life insurance policy issued by massachusetts insurer to new york resident violated due process clause where only georgia contact was that beneficiary moved there (E) holding that new york law applies to this matter
Output (English): holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york