Also known as: policy-selecting rule · policy selecting rule · policy selecting rules · choice-of-law rules · conflicts rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A choice-of-law approach that identifies and weighs the policies, purposes, and interests of potentially interested states to decide which state's law governs a particular issue. The approach treats the selection as a comparison of state objectives rather than a mechanical assignment to a single jurisdiction. It draws on factors such as the needs of the parties, the policies underlying the field of law, and the requirements of the interstate system.
Preston Pratt filed a diversity suit in federal court in New Jersey against a Delaware fund. After learning that New Jersey choice-of-law rules might favor him, he moved to transfer the case to Delaware for convenience. The Delaware court applied New Jersey substantive law and New Jersey choice-of-law rules because the original venue had been proper.
Paula Pierce purchased coastal land in State B from a seller domiciled in State A under a contract designating State A law. A neighbor in State B later claimed a prescriptive easement based on long use. The court weighed the policies of both states and applied the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the land and the parties.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Patrick Phan bought a warehouse in State B from a seller in State A. After default on financing from a lender in State C, the court had to decide redemption rights. Because the property was immovable, the court applied the totality of State B law, including its choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a State B court would reach.
Premier Manufacturing sued a franchisee in Michigan for breach of a franchise agreement negotiated in Florida. The franchisee argued lack of personal jurisdiction. The court examined whether jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice by weighing the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest, and the interstate system's interest in efficient resolution.
Pamela Phillips sued a foreign official in federal court under the Alien Tort Statute for conduct occurring abroad. The court considered whether the claim fell within the statute's narrow scope by examining the policies underlying the federal cause of action and the interests of the United States in adjudicating the dispute.
Parker Phillips sued the Boy Scouts in New York for injuries suffered at a New Jersey camp. New Jersey granted immunity to charities while New York did not. The court compared the policies of both states and applied New Jersey law because New Jersey had the most significant relationship to the conduct and the parties.
Policy-selecting rules compare the purposes and interests of competing states on a particular issue. Jurisdiction-selecting rules assign a case to one state's law based on a single connecting factor such as the place of the wrong or the situs of property.
A court weighs the needs of the parties for protection of justified expectations, the policies of the interested states, the basic policies underlying the field of law, and the needs of the interstate system for harmonious relations.
The transferee court must apply the same state law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. The transfer changes only the courtroom and does not alter the governing choice-of-law framework.
The court applies the totality of the law of the situs state, including its choice-of-law rules, so that the result matches what a court of the situs state would reach on the actual facts.
…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…