Also known as: jurisdiction selecting rules · jurisdiction-selection rules · choice-of-law rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Choice-of-law principles that identify a particular jurisdiction whose substantive law governs a multistate dispute based on the location of key events or contacts. These rules operate by directing the forum to the law of the selected state, including that state's own choice-of-law rules when the issue involves immovables. They promote uniformity by requiring the forum to replicate the result a court of the selected state would reach on the same facts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jonathan Jaffe filed a diversity suit in federal court in New Jersey against a Delaware partnership after a failed investment. Venue was proper there. After learning that New Jersey choice-of-law rules favored his claims, Jaffe moved to transfer the case under section 1404(a) to federal court in Delaware for convenience. The Delaware court must apply New Jersey substantive law and New Jersey choice-of-law rules to the claims.
John Jones purchased land in State B from a seller domiciled in State A under a contract negotiated in State A. A third party later claimed a prescriptive easement based on long use entirely in State B. The court evaluates the contacts and policies of States A and B under the factors in section 6 to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the easement issue and the parties.
Jacob Jennings conveyed a warehouse located in State B to Jessica Jacobs under an agreement that selected State A law. A dispute arose over whether the deed transferred a valid interest. The forum court applies the totality of State B law, including State B choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a State B court would reach on the facts.
Jose Jimenez sued a foreign official in federal court alleging abduction and torture that occurred abroad. The court must first determine whether the claim falls within the Alien Tort Statute and then apply jurisdiction-selecting rules to identify which nation's law governs the substantive elements of the tort.
Javier Jimenez entered a franchise agreement with a Michigan corporation that contained a choice-of-law clause selecting Florida law. After a dispute, the corporation sued in Florida federal court. The court applies jurisdiction-selecting rules to decide whether Florida or Michigan law governs the contract claims after confirming personal jurisdiction.
Jordan Dynamics sued an aircraft manufacturer in Pennsylvania federal court over a crash in Scotland. The defendant moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The court weighs whether dismissal would produce an unfavorable change in law and applies jurisdiction-selecting rules to determine the governing law if the case proceeds in the alternative forum.
Jurisdiction-selecting rules identify a single jurisdiction whose substantive law governs based on territorial contacts such as the place of the wrong or the situs of property. Interest analysis instead weighs the policies and interests of all potentially affected states on an issue-by-issue basis. The traditional territorial rules aim for predictability by always pointing to one state's law.
Supporting sources
The transferee court must apply the same state law, including the same choice-of-law rules, that the transferor court would have applied. This prevents a plaintiff from using a convenience transfer to obtain a different substantive law regime. The rule applies even when the plaintiff requests the transfer after initially choosing an inconvenient but favorable forum.
…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…
…Minnesota District Court disagreed. Interpreting Wisconsin law to disallow stacking, the court concluded that Minnesota’s choice-of-law rules
…result, many plaintiffs are able to choose from among several forums. Ordinarily, these plaintiffs will select that forum whose choice-of-law rules are most advantageous. Thus, if the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law is given substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry, dismissal would rarely be…
…motion, holding that the transfer was justified regardless of whether the transferred actions would be governed by the laws and choice-of-law rules of Pennsylvania or of Massachusetts. 204 F. Supp. 426. The District Court also specifically held that transfer was not precluded by the fact that the plaintiffs had not qualified under…
…of the acts or omissions occurred"); Kohn v. United States , 591 F. Supp. 568, 572 (EDNY 1984) (applying different States' choice-of-law rules
For interests in immovables the reference is to the law of the situs state in its entirety, including the situs state's own choice-of-law rules. The forum must replicate the result a court of the situs would reach on the actual facts. For movables the reference is usually to the local law of the state with the most significant relationship.
Parties typically enter property transactions with forethought and after consulting counsel, so they form expectations about the legal consequences. Choice-of-law rules therefore favor the state whose law the parties anticipated would apply. This consideration receives greater weight in property than in tort because property rules aim to provide certainty and predictability of result.