certainty, predictability and uniformity of result
/SUR-tun-tee pree-DIK-tuh-bil-ih-tee and YOO-nih-FOR-muh-tee of ri-ZULT/·principle
Also known as:predictability of result · uniformity of result
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor in choice-of-law analysis that favors selection of rules likely to produce consistent outcomes across jurisdictions in multistate disputes. The factor discourages forum shopping and supports the justified expectations of parties who structure transactions with advance thought about legal consequences.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Property Interest Determination
Cameron Cruz, a State A resident, purchased coastal land in State B under a contract negotiated and signed in State A that designated State A law. After closing, a State B neighbor asserted a prescriptive easement based on decades of use. The court aggregated contacts and selected the law of the state with the most significant relationship, producing the same result a State B court would reach and thereby achieving certainty and uniformity for future title disputes.
Damages Review Standard
Charlotte Chung sued a New York museum in federal court in New York for loss of photographic transparencies. The district court applied New York's 'deviates materially' standard to deny a new-trial motion. On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed that application for abuse of discretion, ensuring the substantive standard remained uniform whether the case stayed in federal or state court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Study Supplements
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.518 U.S. 415, 429–431 (1996)
Corporate Domicile Test
Citadel Security, incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in California, faced a diversity suit in federal court in California. The court applied the 'nerve center' test to fix citizenship at the headquarters location, producing a single, predictable jurisdictional result that eliminated forum-shopping opportunities based on scattered operations.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010)
Transferred Case Law
Craig Caldwell filed a wrongful-death action in Pennsylvania federal court arising from a Massachusetts plane crash. After transfer to Massachusetts under § 1404(a), the transferee court applied Pennsylvania substantive law, preserving the same choice-of-law outcome that would have occurred in the original forum and thereby maintaining uniformity.
Van Dusen v. Barrack376 U.S. 612 (1964)
Insurance Stacking Issue
Christine Castro, a Minnesota resident, sought to stack uninsured-motorist coverage under a Wisconsin policy after a Wisconsin accident. The Minnesota court applied its own stacking rule after finding sufficient Minnesota contacts, producing a result consistent with the constitutional requirement of significant contacts and avoiding arbitrary selection of law.
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague449 U.S. 302, 308 n.11, 101 S.Ct. 633, 638 n.11, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981)
Internal Affairs Doctrine
Copperfield Mining, a Delaware corporation, faced a stockholder challenge to a merger vote conducted under Delaware law. The Delaware court applied the internal-affairs doctrine, selecting Delaware law for the validity of the vote and thereby ensuring uniform treatment of corporate governance issues regardless of where the suit was filed.
Why does the Restatement treat certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result as a distinct factor?+
The factor discourages forum shopping and supports parties who structure transactions expecting one body of law to govern. It is listed separately in § 6(2)(f) because it reinforces justified expectations and promotes harmonious interstate relations even when other factors are in tension.
Supporting sources
How does this factor interact with protection of justified expectations in property cases?+
In property transactions parties typically consult counsel and anticipate specific legal consequences. Certainty and predictability therefore reinforce the protection of those expectations. Without them, parties' reasonable anticipations would be disappointed.
Supporting sources
Can the factor ever be outweighed by other § 6 considerations?+
Yes. In rapidly developing areas of choice of law it may be more important to develop good rules than to preserve predictability through continued adherence to existing ones. The factor receives greatest weight where parties are likely to give advance thought to legal consequences.
Supporting sources
449 U.S. 302, 101 S. Ct. 633, 66 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1981)Conflict of Laws
…Conflicts Law, 41 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 267 (1966). The state court, therefore, examined the conflict-of-laws issue in terms of (1) predictability of result, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. Although…