Also known as: most significant relationship theory · most-significant relationship theory · most significant relationship · MSR test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law principle that selects the law of the state having the most significant relationship to a thing and the parties with respect to the particular issue. The principle evaluates contacts and policies under the factors in Restatement section 6 to identify the governing state for interests in property and similar matters.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Harper, domiciled in State Y, formed Harbor Holdings LLC in State Q to buy an office building in State Z. After closing, seller Mason and option holder Apex Corp. asserted competing claims in a State Y court. The court weighed the building's location in State Z, the parties' contacts across Y, Q, and Z, and the policies favoring title certainty to identify the state with the most significant relationship to the property issue.
Atlas Capital in State A bought secured loans on artwork stored in State B. After BullionSafe's receivership, local creditors challenged Atlas's priority. The court evaluated the collateral's location in State B, the loan negotiations, and the states' respective policies on secured interests to select the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the movables and the parties.
A New York host drove a New York guest into Ontario where an accident occurred. The guest sued in New York. The court examined the parties' common New York domicile, the place of the relationship, and the policies underlying guest statutes versus compensation rules to determine that New York had the most significant relationship to the issue of host liability.
U.S. officials planned an abduction in Mexico that caused harm there. The victim sued in federal court. The court assessed the location of the injury, the planning contacts, and the policies of the interested sovereigns to decide which state or nation held the most significant relationship to the tort issue.
An Oklahoma couple was involved in a car accident in Missouri. The wife sued the husband in Oklahoma. The court reviewed the parties' Oklahoma domicile, the place of the tort, and the competing policies on interspousal immunity to identify the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the liability question.
The theory requires the court to identify the state with the most significant relationship to the land and the parties on the specific issue by weighing contacts such as the land's location, the parties' domiciles, the place of contracting, and the policies of the interested states. For immovables the situs usually carries heavy weight because the state where the land lies has a strong interest in regulating title and protecting local purchasers. The analysis proceeds issue by issue rather than applying a single state's law to every question in the case.
Supporting sources
…of Laws Restatement in the field of torts. According to the principles there set out, "The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort" (Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, § 379[1]; also Introductory Note to Topic 1 of Chapter 9,…
…of place of wrong . . . has receded in importance, and new approaches and concepts such as governmental interest analysis, most significant relationship
…of contracts: “(1) The validity of a contract is determined by the local law of the state with which the contract has its most significant relationship
…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
No. The theory evaluates all relevant contacts and policies to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the particular issue. Location of the chattel is an important contact but is not invariably controlling. The court may select another state's law when justified expectations, the place of the transaction, or other factors point more strongly to that state.
Supporting sources
The contacts are aggregated and treated as if they were located in a single state for choice-of-law purposes. This aggregation simplifies the analysis and avoids artificial distinctions when the substantive rules are the same.
Supporting sources
The clause is one relevant contact that may support the parties' justified expectations, but it does not automatically control. The court still weighs all contacts and policies, including the location of the land and the interests of third parties such as subsequent purchasers who relied on local recording statutes.
Supporting sources