Also known as:most significant relationship · significant relationship test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law principle that selects the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence or thing and the parties for determining the issue at hand. The principle evaluates contacts such as the location of the thing or occurrence, the parties' domiciles, and the place of relevant transactions according to their relative importance to the particular issue. It incorporates the factors listed in Restatement section 6 to identify the governing state.
Sources & Authorities· 3 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Trailers Titled in One State Garaged in Another
Praxis Leasing, incorporated in State K, leased semi-trailers titled in State K to Horizon Freight, which stored and dispatched them from a hub in State L. State L judgment creditors sought to levy on the trailers. The court weighed the titling contact in State K, the operational situs in State L, and the parties' incorporation states against the policies of each state's property rules and identified State L as having the most significant relationship to the priority issue.
Unrecorded Option on Land in Another State
Nova Mall, headquartered in State A, negotiated a ground lease containing a purchase option in State A and selected State A law in the document. The land lay in State B. After the lessor sold to Shelby, a State B purchaser who searched State B records and found nothing recorded, the court applied the law of the state with the most significant relationship and selected State B law because the land's location and Shelby's reliance on local records outweighed the parties' contractual choice.
Guest-Host Dispute After Out-of-State Accident
Two New York residents were injured when their car crashed in Ontario. The passenger sued the driver under New York law that permitted recovery. The court examined the parties' common domicile, the place of the relationship, and the policies underlying each state's guest statute and concluded that New York possessed the most significant relationship to the issue of host liability.
Babcock v. Jackson12 N.Y.2d p. 482, 240 N.Y.S.2d p. 750, 191 N.E.2d p. 284
Tort Claim Involving Foreign Injury
A Mexican national abducted in Mexico sued U.S. officials in federal court alleging that planning in the United States caused the foreign harm. The court assessed the location of the injury, the place of the conduct, and the respective interests of the United States and Mexico and determined that Mexico held the most significant relationship to the tort claim.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain542 U.S. 692 (2004)
Interspousal Immunity After Out-of-State Accident
An Oklahoma couple was involved in a car accident in Missouri. The wife sued the husband for negligence. The court reviewed the parties' common domicile, the place of the accident, and the policies of each state's immunity rule and concluded that Oklahoma possessed the most significant relationship to the interspousal-immunity issue.
White v. White618 P.2d 921 (Okla.1980)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
How does the most significant relationship test differ from a mechanical situs rule for movables?+
The test requires the court to weigh all contacts, including location of the thing, parties' domiciles, and transaction places, according to their importance to the specific issue rather than automatically selecting the physical situs. Multiple-choice questions on trailer priority and artwork collateral confirm that no single contact controls and that the court must compare policies and expectations across states.
Supporting sources
When does the test select the law of the land's situs for an unrecorded option?+
The test selects situs law when the land lies in that state, a local purchaser relied on its records, and the state's policies protecting title and alienability outweigh the original parties' contractual choice of another state's law. The essay question on the Nova Mall ground lease illustrates that a subsequent purchaser's reliance on situs records gives the situs the predominant relationship.
Supporting sources
Does the test ever aggregate contacts from states that share identical local rules?+
Yes. When two states maintain identical rules on the precise issue, the court treats contacts located in both states as if grouped in a single state for choice-of-law purposes. The essay question involving redemption rights after mortgage default shows that identical rules in States A and C permit aggregation so that the analysis proceeds as though all contacts lie in one jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
What role do the section 6 factors play in applying the test to property issues?+
The section 6 factors guide evaluation of each contact's significance by directing attention to the policies of interested states, protection of justified expectations, basic policies of property law, and needs of judicial administration. Both the hornbook and essay answers emphasize that these factors receive varying weight depending on the field and that protection of expectations is especially important in property transactions.
Supporting sources
, and better rule of law have taken over center stage" (footnotes omitted)). But a good many States still employ essentially the same choice-of-law analysis in tort cases that the First…
, except in the case of usury (see §334d).” Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 332 (Tent. Draft No. 6, 1960) at 6. The proposed draft also sets out guidelines to determine, in…
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)…
Real PropertyOwnership of real property · Special problemsUBEIntermediate