Also known as: close and substantial relationships · substantial relationship
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A legal standard requiring a nonparent to show an ongoing connection with a child. Denial of custody or visitation must result in harm to the child before a court may grant relief.
A legal standard requiring a nonparent to show an ongoing connection with a child. Denial of custody or visitation must result in harm to the child before a court may grant relief.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A connection between a state and the parties or transaction that justifies applying that state's law to their agreement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A connection between a state and the parties or transaction that justifies applying that state's law to their agreement.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
After the parents separated, the longtime nanny continued to handle school enrollment and therapy appointments for their son. She petitioned for visitation, showing years of daily involvement that met the required connection. The court granted limited time because cutting off contact would harm the child's stability.
The nonparent must establish a substantial relationship with the child and show that denial of contact would cause harm. The statute also requires that the nonparent be a consistent caretaker or that an award serves the child's best interests.
Supporting sources
The nonparent must show that the relationship meets the requirements of Section 4(c) of the uniform act.
Supporting sources
Two parties from different states signed a supply agreement selecting New York law. The buyer was headquartered in New York and performance occurred there. The court applied New York law because the state had the required connection to the parties and transaction.
An insurer and insured from different states chose Illinois law in their policy. The insured resided in Illinois and paid premiums there. The court enforced the choice because Illinois possessed a sufficient connection to the parties.
A remote worker and employer selected California law. The employer maintained its principal office in California and the worker performed key duties for California clients. The court upheld the selection given the state's connection to the transaction.
Borrower and lender from separate states designated Texas law. The loan was negotiated and funded in Texas. The court applied Texas law because the state had the necessary relationship to the parties.
A manufacturer and distributor chose Michigan law. The manufacturer's main plant and all production occurred in Michigan. The court enforced the clause because Michigan had a substantial relationship to the transaction.
A court will apply the chosen state's law unless that state lacks a substantial relationship to the parties or transaction and no other reasonable basis supports the choice. The test protects against arbitrary selection of law with no genuine connection.
Supporting sources
…alleged diminution in value of the owner’s land, the Court held that the zoning laws were facially constitutional. They bore a substantial relationship to the public welfare, and their enactment inflicted no irreparable injury upon the landowner. Id. , at 395-397. In this case, the zoning ordinances substantially advance legitimate…