Also known as: choice-of-law rule · choice of law rule · choice of law rules · choice of law · conflicts rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Rules that determine which jurisdiction's substantive law governs a dispute involving contacts with multiple states or nations. These rules identify the state or nation whose local law supplies the standard for deciding the rights and duties of the parties. They operate by reference to connecting factors such as the place of the wrong, the parties' domiciles, the situs of property, or the place of contracting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Craig Caldwell, a citizen of State X, sues Continental Bank, a State Y corporation, in federal court sitting in State X for breach of a loan agreement negotiated partly in both states. The federal judge must consult State X choice-of-law rules to decide whether State X or State Y substantive contract law controls the claim. Those rules select State Y law because the bank is headquartered there and the loan documents were finalized in State Y.
Claire Campbell, domiciled in State A, purchases coastal land in State B from a seller also domiciled in State A. A dispute arises over whether a prescriptive easement claimed by a State B resident has ripened. The court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state with the most significant relationship to the land and the parties, which points to State B because the land is located there and the use occurred entirely in State B.
Cody Callahan, domiciled in State A at the time of execution, signs a will before a notary in Switzerland while maintaining a long-term apartment there. After moving to State B where he dies, his heirs contest validity under State B's stricter attestation rules. The court upholds the will because its execution complied with the law of the place of execution or the place of abode at execution.
Carmen Choi files suit in federal court in State A. The case is transferred for convenience to federal court in State B under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The transferee court must apply the choice-of-law rules that the State A court would have applied, even though the plaintiff now prefers State B law.
Charles Cunningham, domiciled in State A, conveys land located in State B. A later dispute requires the forum court to determine whether the conveyance transferred a valid interest. The court looks to the totality of State B law, including State B's own choice-of-law rules, to replicate the result a State B court would reach.
Connor Clark, a franchisee operating in State A, signs a contract with Crown Pharmaceuticals that contains a clause selecting State B law. When a dispute arises, the court first determines whether the clause is enforceable under applicable choice-of-law rules before deciding which state's substantive law governs the breach claim.
A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits because those rules are treated as substantive for Erie purposes. This prevents the accident of diversity jurisdiction from producing different outcomes than would occur in the adjacent state court.
Supporting sources
After a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from a district where venue was proper, the transferee court must apply the same choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. The transfer changes only the place of trial, not the governing law.
…center of gravity' of the controversy, or the most convenient location for litigation. The issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice of law. It is resolved in this case by considering the acts of the [appellants]." Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U. S. 235, 254 (1958). Appellee suggests that by accepting positions as officers or…
…law with the "fundamental substantive social policies" of another State may be accommodated through application of the forum's choice-of-law rules.[^maj-19] Similarly, a defendant claiming substantial inconvenience may seek a change of venue.[^maj-20] Nevertheless, minimum requirements inherent in the concept of "fair play and…
…into the State. Nor is the discriminatory impact of § 11450.03 abated by repeatedly characterizing it as "a sort of specialized choice-of-law rule."[^maj-23] California law alone discriminates among its own citizens on the basis of their prior residence. The Solicitor General also suggests that we should recognize the congressional…
…difference is in the bother and expense — not in the principle of the thing. The concept of domicile as a controlling factor in choice of law to govern many relations of the individual was well known to the framers of the Constitution. It was hardly contemplated that a person should be subject at once to two conflicting state…
…of the acts or omissions occurred"); Kohn v. United States , 591 F. Supp. 568, 572 (EDNY 1984) (applying different States' choice-of-law rules
Supporting sources
The Restatement directs courts to evaluate the significance of a relationship to the potentially interested states, the thing, and the parties under the factors listed in § 6. For property, protection of justified expectations receives considerable weight because parties typically consult counsel and form expectations before entering transactions.
Supporting sources
A written will remains valid if its execution complies with the law of the place where the will was executed or with the law of the place where the testator was domiciled, had a place of abode, or was a national at the time of execution or death. This saves wills that satisfy any one of several listed connecting factors.
Supporting sources