Choice of Law

When a dispute has a connection to more than one jurisdiction, and when the laws of those jurisdictions are materially different, a court must perform a choice-of-law analysis to determine which law to apply. To make this determination, a court will typically apply the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction in which it sits. Although choice-of-law rules vary significantly across U.S. states, many courts look to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for guidance. The American Law Institute is currently in the process of drafting the Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws.

Recent Posts

When Should Federal Common Law Govern Transnational Litigation?

The conventional wisdom is that transnational litigation “can trigger foreign relations concerns.” Because the federal government has primary responsibility for the United States’ relations with other nations, the question naturally arises whether federal law should govern such litigation even when neither a federal statute, nor the U.S. Constitution, nor a treaty is applicable. Currently, as…

Continue Reading

A Primer on State Law in Transnational Litigation

[Editors: This post is one in a series of Primers on topics in transnational litigation. Primers on each of the topics listed in the Topics menu are planned, and some already appear on the relevant topic pages.] The procedural and substantive rules that U.S. courts apply in transnational litigation come from many sources, including the…

Continue Reading

Side-Stepping the Dismal Swamp: A Reply to Roosevelt

In a recent post, we sought to call attention to what we see as two issues with the way the draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws embraces a specific theory of choice of law called the “two-step” approach. First, we suggested that there is a disconnect between the “two-step” approach and the Restatement’s black…

Continue Reading