Also known as: most significant connections · most significant relationship · closest connection
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law principle that selects the law of the state with the closest connection to the parties and the thing at issue for determining interests in property. The principle requires evaluation of contacts such as the location of the thing, the parties' domiciles, and the policies of interested states according to their relative importance for the specific issue.
Praxis Leasing leased semi-trailers titled in State K to Horizon Freight, whose operations centered in State L. State L creditors sought to levy on the trailers after obtaining judgments. The court weighed the titling state, the place of storage and operation, and the regulatory interests of each jurisdiction to identify the state whose law governed the creditors' priority claims.
River Ocean financed a State B warehouse purchase with a loan from a State C lender. After default the lender sought to enforce its security interest. Because State A and State C maintained identical redemption rules, the court aggregated contacts from those states and treated them as located in a single jurisdiction when selecting the governing law.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Apex Bank held a security interest in equipment located in State M and owned by Delta Corp., whose principal place of business was in State N. After default, competing creditors in State O asserted claims. The court evaluated the location of the equipment, the parties' domiciles, and the policies of each interested state to select the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship for determining priority.
The court identifies the state with the most significant relationship to the thing and the parties on the particular issue by weighing contacts such as the location of the thing, the parties' domiciles, and the policies of interested states according to their relative importance.
Contacts located in the two states are aggregated and treated for choice-of-law purposes as if they were grouped in a single state.
Yes. The reference is to the totality of the law of the situs state, including its choice-of-law rules, so that the forum reaches the same result a court of the situs would reach on the actual facts.
Yes. The court evaluates each cluster of issues independently to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the particular thing and the parties on that issue.
…to a particular issue in tort shall be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. The factors to be taken into account and to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to a particular issue, shall include: “(1)…