Select Page

Conflicts of Law
University of Kentucky School of Law
Davis, Mary J.

Conflict of Laws—Outline


A. Conflicts of Intrastate Authorities

a. Statutist approach: We interpret the statute to see how it is applied
b. Common law principles: What have the cases said?
c. Public Policy: Where is the appropriate location for the exercise of authority? Power of the sovereign à power of the legislature over the power of the judiciary
d. Content of the principles themselves à who are the beneficiaries of the law, who should be the beneficiaries of the law
e. Precedent/Notice/Predictability à How will a change in the law affect behavior
f. Uniformity
g. Fairness
h. Timing: Which rule is the oldest
i. Limitations (Constitutional)

First Restatement Method

A. Characterize the Issue as Procedure or Substance

a. Analysis

i. Characterization of an issue as procedural or substantive will depend on the analysis of the forum court
ii. Legislative intent
iii. Treatment by the other jurisdiction

1. Does the other jurisdiction treat this as procedural or substantive
2. Restatement characterization

a. § 584—Forum court determines whether a given question is one of substance or procedure
b. § 585—All matters of procedure are governed by forum law
c. § 592—PLEADING and COURT CONDUCT: Forum
d. § 594—JURY TRIAL v. JUDGE TRIAL: Forum
e. § 595—PROOF OF FACTS & PRESUMPTIONS and INFERENCES to be drawn from evidence: Forum
f. § 596—COMPETENCY and CREDIBILITY of witnesses: Forum
i. § 604—If FOREIGN SOL is shorter FORUM SOL may apply
j. § 605—Law of CREATING state a TIME LIMIT is placed

t the way in which damages are assessed.
b. Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines

i. Damages ceiling affects the remedy not the right

2. Law’s purpose—Local vs. Foreign—Importance of Domicile

a. Like in Grant v. McAuliffe the survival statute was more a local administrative rule
b. However, if the suit were in Arizona this wouldn’t be considered an administrative rule

3. Efficiency of judicial machinery
4. Larger policy issues: Compensatory v. Deterrent effect

a. Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines

i. New York court decided that it needed to protect its citizens and therefore refused to apply the damages ceiling that would be applied under Massachusetts law.