Steven N.

Tandet
Student # 3863

Conflicts of Law

I. :7isdiction: th700 fo72s (1) In Personam (2) In Rem and (3) Quasi In Rem

A. In Personam judicial power over D whether or not present in court`s venue

1. 0n07al :7isdiction D available Ior all causes against in
O Domicile;
O ong term residence

2. Li2it0d (Sp0cial) :7isdiction only those actions related to D`s activities in Iorum
may be brought
a. 'oluntary appearance or consent
b. ocal Actions and eIIects (long arm jurisdiction)
O mplied consent behavior oI D based on local actions or its eIIects
O onstructive consent
c. Minimum contacts constitutionally min contacts twix Forum & D
O nternational Shoe v. Washington
O McGee v. nternational iIe nsurance o.
d. Foreseeability
O Ashai Metal ndustry o,. td v. Suerior ourt oI aliIornia

B. In Rem t jurisdiction over a 'thing (Res)

1. nterests in Property
a. mmoveable Property generally decided by law oI its situs
b. Moveable Property may be assigned various legal locations

. Quasi In Rem suits that are chieIly personal but where Res is used as

1. Basis Ior jurisdiction or

2. To satisIy a judgment (but see ShaIIer v Heitner Ior constitutionality question)

D. Notice perIects otherwise Good Jurisdiction

1. P owes D the best Notice 'reasonably (calculated to reach him) under all the
circumstances per Mullane v entral Hanover Bank


II. o70ign :dg20nts (i0 on0 stat0 70cognizing th0 :dg20nt of a sist07 stat0)
:ll aith & C70dit

A. Policies underlying the recognition and enIorcement oI 'Foreign judgments

1. Recognition oI 'sister state judgments Full Faith and redit
(US onstitution Art ' Section )
a. Recognition oI In Personam judgments yes
b. Recognition oI In Rem and Quasi in Rem - no




Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
III. Constit:tional obligation to p7ovid0 a o7:2 o7 Choos0 a law

A. onstitutional limitations on choice oI law per Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts


IV. Choic0 of Law Doct7in0 - th700 app7oach0s (1) V0st0d Rights (T077ito7ial); (2) C0nt07 of
7avity (2ost significant 70lationship) 3) gov07n20ntal int070st analysis

A. V0st0d Rights App7oach that oI the place (territory) where the essential Ieature oI the
transaction occurred 'ex oci Delicti

1. n Tort Action: place oI the last act necessary to create liability

2. n ontract Action: depends upon whether issue to be decided is one oI validity and
terms oI the contract (governed by place oI making oI contract) or an issue oI satisIaction
or excuse (governed by place oI perIormance)

3. Escape lauses
a. lassiIication or Foreign aw as to procedural (Forum uses its own procedures) or
substantive (the Foreign aw that the Forum may adopt)
b. Renvoi where Iorum will look to Ioreign laws conIlict oI law issues
e. generally applicable to Domestic Relations and mmovable object situations

B. C0nt07 of 7avity App7oach 2
nd
Restatement oI onIlicts oI aws section 6 suggests that
the substative law chosen to govern should be the one with the 'most signiIicant relationship
(greatest number oI contacts, qualitatively and quantitatively) with the parties and their
transactions

1. Per Restmt section 145, Ior Torts contacts include
a. domicile/residence oI parties
b. place oI harmIul act or omission
c. place oI injury
d. place where parties` relationship was centered
I. see Babcock v. Jackson

. ov07n20ntal Int070st Analysis examination oI the policies behind apparently
conIlicting laws were analyzed it might be discovered that both laws were not intended to
apply to the situation; the laws oI the only interested jurisdiction could be applied without
oIIense to the other state


V. Do20stic R0lations P7obl02s in conflicts of law

A. Peculiarities The interest oI the domicile
B. Jurisdiction to Marry
. Divorce Jurisdiction
D. ollateral attack on divine Jurisdiction
E. Domestic relations Jurisdiction distinguishing 'status Irom 'incidents oI status
F. Other issues oI Marital status
1. Foreign country divorce
2. Judicial separation
3. Annulment




Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
G. ssues involving children
1. egitimation law Iavors legitimacy
2. Adoption law is that oI place where it occurs
3. ustody
H. Support ourts must have personal jurisdiction over the parties
1. ModiIication oI support decrees
2. UniIorm reciprocal enIorcement oI support act (URESA)
. Ownership and distribution oI marital property upon dissolution oI marriage

VI. P7op07ty

A. hoice oI aw concerning transIer oI interest in property
1. mmovable property law oI Situs oI property
2. Moveable property

B. hoice oI laws in typical transactions involving immovable
Renvoi
2. Security transactions

. hoice oI laws in typical transactions involving moveable property
1. Succession to moveable property
2. Inter Jivos transactions
3. Rule oI validation choose one state`s validating laws over another states` invalidating
law
4. Securities transactions involving Moveables
5. TransIer oI interests in intangible must be given legal locations Ior purposes oI transIer

D. Trusts and Iuture interests




























Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
Conflicts of Law inal Exa2

Summer 2001
nstructor: Greg Morris
Student: Steven N. Tandet
D #: 3863

Question #1
Questions Presented

1. an Jurisdiction be acquired over Jethro Bodine ndustries (JB) in North arolina (N)?

2. Will this case be decided on Tort or ontract or other law?

BrieI Answer

1. Jurisdiction may be acquired over JB in N, given that Barney is able to establish the 'minimum
contacts.
2. The case would be decided in both Tort law, and ontract / UniIorm ommercial ode (U)
Article 2 law, in Iavor oI Barney.
Discussion

1. The N statute applies only 'against a Ioreign corporation doing business in the state, or a Ioreign
corporation which has done business in the state even iI the corporation has now withdrawn Irom
the state. JB`s activities do not meet the Iirst part oI the statute, 'doing business currently in the
state. JB does, however, meets the second part oI the statute, 'a Ioreign corporation which has
done business in the state even iI the corporation has now withdrawn Irom the state, as it had
transacted business in the state until 2 years ago. The issue arises as to whether the statute would
be applicable to the current action, since the current action is not related to JB`s previous
business. n order to determine this, a determination as to which oI the three Iorms oI
:7isdiction: (1) In Personam (2) In Rem and (3) Quasi In Rem is warranted. Based upon the
Iacts presented, In Personam (judicial power over the deIendant whether or not present in the
court`s venue) is applicable in this situation. North arolina would assert Li2it0d (Sp0cial)
:7isdiction (Jurisdiction over only those actions related to to JB`s activities in the Iorum) over
JB. Since the N statute is one oI ocal Actions and EIIects (Long A72 stat:t0) one need look
to the Iollowing connections oI JB to N: (i) implied consent; (ii) constructive consent; or (iii)
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
'minimum contacts. The Iacts do not indicate that either oI the Iirst two alternatives are
applicable; thereIore an analysis under a '2ini2:2 contacts theory is appropriate. N would be
able to establish that certain 'minimum contacts exist between JB and N, the Forum state, per
Int07national Sho0. The theory oI 'minimum contacts suggests the existence oI suIIicient
contacts between the absent deIendant and the Jurisdiction seeking authority, such that they would
minimally satisIy the requirements oI the onstitution`s Due Process clause. nternational Shoe
deIined 'minimum contacts so that it did not violat0 t7aditional notions of fai7 play and
s:bstantial j:stic0." Based upon the Iact that JB advertises in magazines that are circulated in
North arolina and on a nationally televised inIormational seen in North arolina, th0 t0st fo7
2ini2:2 contacts wo:ld b0 20t and In Personam :7isdiction wo:ld b0 20t. n addition, this
'minimum ontacts under the stated Iacts and circumstances is 70asonabl0, satisIying the
onstitutionally issue, the second part test oI nternational Shoe.
The statute provides that the Secretary oI State can be served when no agent has been appointed to

receive service Ior any cause oI action against a Ioreign corporation. Once Jurisdiction is

established, otic0 p07f0cts oth07wis0 good j:7isdiction. Notice alone cannot create jurisdiction,

and a plaintiII owes the best Notice reasonably calculated to reach him under the circumstances,

per Mullane v. entral Hanover Bank & Trust o. 339 U.S. 306 (1950). This does not guarantee

actual Notice.
Barney`s wishes to attach in North arolina certain raw materials in the hands oI a common
carrier, Goober Trucking, Ior which the carrier had given JB a bill oI lading in aliIornia. n
applying the Due Process standard to Rem Jurisdiction, the court would look towards Shaff07 v.
H0itn07 433 U.S. 186 (1977) which held that all assertions oI state-court jurisdiction must be
evaluated according to the standard in nternational Shoe. Based upon that rationale, Barney`s
attempt to attach property in state that is unrelated to the action at hand would Iail, as there is no
'minimum contact between the attached property and the action at hand.
2. To7t Th0o7y: Barney would sue under the Torts oI Strict Product iability and Negligence by

establishing that a Duty was owed to him by JB, this Duty was Breached, he was injured,
sustained Damages and this Breach was the Proximate cause oI his injuries. JB has a Duty to use
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
Reasonable are in the use and manuIacture oI its product. Barney was injured as a result oI JB
placing a deIective and unsaIe product into the stream oI commerce, thus Breaching its Duty.
Barney lost his hair (and maybe even Thelma ou) as a Proximate cause oI the deIective JB
product. Barney suIIered Damages (the loss oI his hair) and may have additional Damages Ior hair
replacement, toupee or medical costs.
Cont7act (UCC) Th0o7y: Barney could sue under the U Warranty oI Merchantability (U 2-
314(2)(c))and mplied Warranty - Fitness Ior a Particular Purpose (U 2-315). Under U 3-
314 Barney would need to prove that the Goods were not Merchantable, speciIically 'Iit Ior the
ordinary purpose Ior which the Goods are used. Under 2-315 Barney would need to prove that
the JB knew the particular purpose that the Goods were intended and that the buyer was relying
on the seller`s skill or judgment. Based upon the Iacts, both oI these items could be established,
and JB would be liable to Barney via vertical privity.
onclusion

1. North arolina can obtain Jurisdiction over JB, having established In Personam Special
Jurisdiction based upon the nternational Shoe test.
2. Barney will prevail on the Torts oI Strict Product iability and Negligence, as JB placed a
deIective and unsaIe product into the stream oI commerce, which was the Proximate cause oI
Barney`s injuries. n addition, Barney would prevail on the U mplied Warranty oI Fitness Ior a
Particular Purpose and mplied Warranty oI Merchantablility as the Goods Iailed to meet the U
requirements.
Question #4
Questions Presented
1. What are SienIeld`s rights against each Party and may he enIorce these rights in New York?
2. Discuss strength and weaknesses Ior bringing the action in New York.
BrieI Answer

1. SienIeld has rights against both Bubba Gump`s Flying Service (BGFS) and Snoopy`s personal
representative; Jurisdiction can properly be established in New York.
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
2. The major Strength Ior bringing the action in New York is that New York holds the owner oI an
airplane Strictly iable Ior damages to structures on the ground; Alabama has no such statute.
Also the courts would tend to be Iriendlier to a native plaintiII, The major Weakness Ior bringing
the action in New York is that the New York court may tend to have a tougher time enIorcing any
judgment, when the deIendant has no property located within the Iorum, than the court oI the state
where the deIendant`s is incorporated and its property is located.
Discussion
1. SienIeld`s rights are analyzed in light oI the Iollowing:
:7isdiction Iss:0: New York has an applicable statute which permits its courts to exercise
jurisdiction over any nonresident as to any cause oI action arising Irom an injury suIIered in New
York. Presumably, the Iact that the injury was suIIered in New York would provide suIIicient
'2ini2:2 contact :nd07 Int07national Sho0. BGFS was the owner oI the plane and its
employee, Snoopy, was the pilot on this ill-Iated Ilight; thereIore the statute is meant to apply to
this Iact pattern involving BGFS, since the injury took place in New York. The statute is a Long
A72 stat:t0 and its goal is to provide Jurisdiction to New York and protect citizens oI the Iorum
state. This quest Ior Special (imited) In Personam Jurisdiction is clearly based upon the I2pli0d
Cons0nt th0o7y, as the behavior oI the potential deIendant is such that the deIendant implicitly
'consents to Jurisdiction, based on the deIendant`s local actions. Since the statute is applicable to
'any nonresident, it would apply against both BS and against Snoopy`s p07sonal
70p70s0ntativ0 Snoopy b0ing d0c0as0d. The Iacts do not state that Alabama does not have a
similar statute as New York`s ThereIore it should be no 'unconstitutional surprise to BGFS or
Snoopy`s personal representative iI the New York statute was applied.
Choic0 of Law Iss:0: New York has an applicable statute which imposes Strict iability upon the
owner oI an aircraIt which causes damage to structures on the ground. Since Alabama has no such
statute, the law must be analyzed in light oI th0 Conflicts of Law three approaches (1) 'ested
Rights (Territorial); (2) enter oI Gravity (most signiIicant relationship) and (3) Governmental
nterest Analysis. The V0st0d Rights App7oach applies the law oI the place where the essential
Ieature oI the transaction occurred 'ex oci Delicti. n this situation, a Tort Action, the court
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
would apply the law oI the place oI the last act necessary to create liability-New York. The
C0nt07 of 7avity App7oach , per the 2
nd
Restatement oI onIlicts oI aws section 6, suggests
that the substantive law chosen to govern should be the one with the 'most signiIicant
relationship (greatest number oI contacts, qualitatively and quantitatively) with the parties and
their transactions in this case, New York. The ov07n20ntal Int070st Analysis requires an
examination oI the policies behind apparently conIlicting laws where it might be discovered that
both laws were not intended to apply to the situation; the laws oI the only interested jurisdiction
could be applied without oIIense to the other state in this case New York. ThereIore in all three
onIlicts oI aws approaches, New York law would be applied.
2. St70ngths fo7 b7inging th0 action in 0w Yo7: New York has the greatest interest in resolving
this action, as its citizen, the New York domiciled SeinIeld, was injured, as well as property
located in the state was destroyed. Since New York enacted the strict liability statute, it has
demonstrated a greater interest in issues such as this than Alabama, which has no similar statute.
n addition, the ability to have an action decided by local (Yankee) New Yorkers Ior a New
Yorker against the Southerners (Rebels) Irom Alabama would give the plaintiII some belieI that
the suit would be decided in his Iavor.
0an0ss0s fo7 b7inging action in 0w Yo7: The biggest weakness is that the deIendants are
located out oI state, with no property to attach in New York; Service oI the action may be an issue.
n addition, the ability oI the court to track the payment and enIorce the judgment is likely to be
harder due to the physical location oI deIendants and their assets especially Snoopy`s personal
representative. Note however that Snoopy was required to carry $100,000 in liability insurance
that would presumably be available to help pay Ior any judgment. n addition, the deIendant`s
potential argument oI ormus Nonconvenious could play a part in getting the action removed Irom
New York. Either way, the deIendants would most likely move to have the trial in Iederal court.
onclusion

1. SienIeld can Iile his action against both BGFS and Snoopy`s personal representative, obtain
Jurisdiction over each deIendant, and win his case; New York`s interests outweigh the interests oI
Alabama
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
2. The major Strength Ior bringing the action in New York Iar outweigh any potential Weakness Ior
bringing the action in New York. SeinIeld would look to the courts oI Alabama to recognize the
decision oI a Foreign Judgments (i.e. one state recognizing the Judgment oI a sister state) under
the Full Faith & redit clause oI the onstitution. (US onstitution Art ' Section ) -
Recognition oI In Personam judgments yes; Recognition oI In Rem and Quasi in Rem - no
Question #5
Question Presented

Should the Tennessee court grant or deny Bama`s motion to dismiss the Tennessee action Ior lack oI
Jurisdiction?
BrieI Answer

Although the issue has merit to be decided either way, the compelling argument would most likely be
to d0ny Ba2a`s 2otion to dis2iss the Tennessee action Ior lack oI Jurisdiction. Jethro Farms (JF)
would likely be able to establish '2ini2:2 contacts. based upon its Irequent and consistent dealing
with JF in Tennessee and the Iact that its goods were warehoused in Tennessee.
Discussion

The Tennessee statute permits creditors like JF to 'institute proceedings by attachment and to
adjudicate claims against nonresidents to the extent oI any property located in the state and to assert
long arm Jurisdiction over nonresident corporations that transact any business in the state and to assert
ong Arm Jurisdiction over nonresident corporations that transact any business in the state or Iail to
perIorm any contractual obligations with substantial ties to the state.
There are generally 3 fo72s of :7isdiction: (1) In Personam (2) In Rem and (3) Quasi In Rem. .
Based upon the Iacts presented Quasi In Rem (suits that are chieIly personal but where Res is used as
basis Ior jurisdiction or to satisIy a judgment) is applicable in this situation. Tennessee asserts that it
would have imited (Special) Jurisdiction over JF applying Schaff07 v. H0itn07 433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Ior Rem Jurisdiction, evaluated under the 'minimum contacts theory, per Int07national Sho0 v.
ashington 326 U.S. 310 (1945). n order to meet this 'minimum contact test in a contract
situation, the Tennessee court would look to B:7g07 King v. R:dz0wicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), where
the court held that Florida could assert Jurisdiction over Rudzewicz (a Michigan resident) had
Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
purposeIully availed himselI oI the beneIits oI Florida law by entering into a Iranchise relationship
with Burger King, which was headquartered in Florida, Iinding that even though Rudzewicz had not
set Ioot in Florida, that Iact was not Iatal to the assertion oI Jurisdiction, given that Rudzewicz had
oIten conducted business by mail or telephone. n the present situation, Bama had Irequent and
consistent dealings with JF in Tennessee and its goods were warehoused in Tennessee provides support
Ior assertion oI jurisdiction in Tennessee in light oI the statute. Based upon Burger King v. Rudzewicz,
the Iact that no employee oI Bama had met with JF in Tennessee should not prove Iatal to Tennessee`s
assertion oI Jurisdiction. However, the relationship between Bama and JF was not as closely regulated
as the Iranchise contract in Burger King v. Rudzewicz; in addition the small dollar amount involved
here would distinguish the instant case with Burger King v. Rudzewicz.

The Iact that JF`s Iinal product are present in Tennessee helps build the case Ior Jurisdiction in
Tennessee; the argument could even be made that the product contains the raw materials that
originated in Tennessee and bears some relationship to the claim. Even though the Iinal product is in
Tennessee through an independent distributor Ior shipment to Georgia, it may be argued that Bama
derives a beneIit, albeit it an indirect beneIit, in the Iinal product. This analysis, coupled with the above
discussions related to 'minimum contacts should be suIIicient to establish proper Jurisdiction in
Tennessee. As an alternative argument, however, it may be tough to annex the Iinal product to the case
at hand, given that they are being stored by the independent distributor`s warehouse Ior shipment out
oI state.

Tennessee would serve as a more convenient Iorum Ior the witnesses. n addition, Tennessee`s more
obvious stake in providing a convenient Iorum Ior JF establishes a reasonable basis Ior the assertion oI
Jurisdiction that overcomes the ormus Nonconvenious argument that Bama may raise. Per Asahi
M0tals Ind:st7y Co. Ltd. v. S:p07io7 Co:7t of Califo7nia, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), since Bama had
'minimumcontacts with Tennessee, it was 'fo70s00abl0 that these 'minimum contacts could result
in the Jurisdiction b0ing 70asonabl0 consistent with the Due Process standard oI the onstitution.


Steven N. Tandet
Student # 3863
Once Jurisdiction is established, otic0 p07f0cts oth07wis0 good :7isdiction. Notice alone cannot
create Jurisdiction, and a plaintiII owes the best Notice reasonably calculated to reach him under the
circumstances, per Mullane v. entral Hanover Bank & Trust o., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). This does not
guarantee actual Notice. n the instant case, Bama was properly served process.
onclusion

Given the Iacts and circumstances in this case, JF has established the requisite 'minimum contacts,
and Tennessee will have Jurisdiction over Bama based upon the nternational Shoe test. The case
should be decided on the Tennessee statutes and the Motion to Dismiss by Bama should be denied.