Source: https://www.oxbridgenotes.com/revision_notes/law-university-of-virginia-school-of-law-conflict-of-laws/samples/conflict_of_laws_outline
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:05:11+00:00

Document:
This is an extract of our Conflict Of Laws document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws Outlines collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia School Of Law students.
? Finality: We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.
? NY approach: Conduct regulation (place of conduct) v. loss allocation (flexible system from Edwards). Tort law is generally loss-allocating, but also is designed to incentivize conduct--consider primary purpose of the law. For statutes, look to legislative history and context.
? Exception: Jurisdictional attack. May not argue that Case 1 was incorrectly decided, but may argue that court lacked jurisdiction to decide Case 1.
? Judgments are final regardless of whether they are correct (Fauntleroy) o But see Jurisdictional Challenges: Presumption that a second court may not inquire into jurisdiction if (1) the issue of jurisdiction or (2) the underlying facts necessary to determine jurisdiction were litigated (Durfee).
Who is bound by preclusion?
? NOTE: Did not choose Privileges and Immunities Clause method, which would have required VA to treat MD judgment as VA treats VA judgments. Instead, VA must treat MD judgment as MD treats MD judgment.
? About predictability. State Courts Only: 1738 only applies to the judgments of state courts.
? State Administrative Agencies: Not courts within the meaning of 1738, so even if a state gives preclusion to their decisions, other states aren't obliged to apply that state's preclusion laws to the administrative proceeding - they are free to do what they want.
? Federal Courts: Their judgments are not covered by 1738. Preclusion on their judgments is federal common law.
? Article IV: policy Full Faith and Credit Clause: Ensures states will mutually recognize each others' decrees. Can be read to include either ex ante predictability or ex post predictability - either parties know where the decree was issued (ex ante - FF&C Statute) or where they are being sued (ex post - not chosen). Privileges and Immunity Clause: about anti-discrimination and ex post predictability. Prevents out-of-staters from being treated differently under the law than state citizens.
? Fauntleroy v. Lum (1908 p. 523) Incorrect Judgments Are Final FACTS: P and D made options contract in MS which is illegal and void in MS as gambling. Arbitrator misapplies MS law and gives P award. D doesn't comply with award, thinking it's unenforceable in MS. P tags D in MO w/ jurisdiction and MO enforces the award (also misapplying MS law). P files to record judgment in MS, which refuses to recognize MO judgment. RULE (Holmes): MO award is final even though it got MS law wrong. MS must enforce MO judgment per Section 1738.
such cases or 2. Court where challenged doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce such judgments) DISSENT (White): MO court, a creation of MO legislature, cannot undermine public policy of MS, which can only be set by MS legislature.
? APPLICATION: Parents represented daughter's interests during GA proceedings, so GA decree is binding on her. RULE-Finality: basic FF&C statute - SC must respect finality of final GA decree that could not be modified in GA. But FF&C would allow a decree subject to modification to be modified by other states (see below for UIFSA, family law carveout).
? Criminal Prosecutions: states do not enforce criminal laws of another state. Instead, it is a question of extradition.
? Thomas v. Washington Gas Light (1980 p. 540) - Tort vs. Insurance, Constitutional Limit FACTS: DC resident employed by DC employer, was injured on job in VA. VA Industrial Commission approves worker's compensation agreement which is to continue during incapacity. Later, employee tries to get compensation under DC WC Act. After P recovers under VA statute?
4 Plurality (Stevens +3): VA and DC have different WC acts, so VA judgment on VA law need not (under FF&CC) be binding on DC court applying DC law. Treat DC award as a supplemental recovery.
? HARRISON: Stevens should have used insurance rationale. Treat WC like an insurance policy: you can recover in excess of it (supplemental recovery), but you can't get double recovery.
? Concurrence (White +2): Follows McCartin (which gets overruled by the other blocs). VA did not intend law to apply extraterritorially, so its WC decision need not under FF&CC be binding on DC.
? Dissent: (Rehnquist+1/HARRISON): Apply Magnolia. If VA would hold that its judgment has preclusive effect on any future WC proceeding in VA, the VA award must have the same effect on DC WC proceedings per the FF&CC.
? But see Matsushita: Court can have jurisdiction to assess strength of a claim (e.g. to evaluate fairness of a release agreement) that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate.
? FACTS: Accretion question litigated in NE court, which determines property is in NE and NE court has jurisdiction. Loser goes to MO court and asks it to review accretion question and hold that land is in MO.
? NOTE: jurisdiction depends on finding of fact as to accretion vs. avulsion.
? Clarke v. Clarke (1900 p. 559): No Equitable Conversion o FACTS: Woman in SC dies intestate and leaves land in CT. Intestacy laws of SC and CT would leave land to different people. SC court says "equitable conversion" and changes property to chattel not real estate.
? NOTE: Personal property would be governed by law of state of domicile, SC. o RULE: Land Taboo. CT (situs) law applies because title to land is in question.
? Fall v. Eastin (1909 p. 561) Injunctions by non situs o FACTS: During divorce of WA couple, WA court enjoins husband (decree) to convey real estate in NE to wife. Husband left WA before signing conveyance to wife, and conveyed to his brother. WA commissioner conveys to Wife. Wife sues brother for title in NE and loses. o RULE (McKenna): equity acts on the person, and cannot affect the property, thus neither WA decree nor commissioner's deed can bind NE court to transfer property.
? NE court would have been obligated to enforce the conveyance had the WA court successfully enjoined him to sign the conveyance while he was in WA.
? NE allowed to enforce decree if it wants to (by discarding the land taboo and recognizing WA ability to order conveyance of NE land) o CONCUR (Holmes): Contract solution - WA decree was enforceable in NE (like a contract), NE court has obligation to enforce decree, i.e., make him sign the conveyance (like specific performance remedy to contract).
? (1) Litigate proceedings in WA and obtain right to land (e.g., declaratory judgment/merits decision).
(3) Seek a remedy in NE (situs) pursuant to decree from (2): injunction for title to land (remedy).
? NE cannot reject WA judgment on rights, but can refuse to issue a remedy if its law differs.
? Worthlee v. Worthlee (Cal. 1955 p. 570) - Comity o FACTS: Support decree in NJ of weekly amount open for modification. CA wants to modify based on changed circumstances.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Outlines.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.