1 / 12

true conflicts

Explore true conflicts in legal jurisdiction with cases from Lilienthal v. Kaufman (Ore. 1964) to Cooney v. Osgood Machinery (NY 1993). Analyze dilemmas in applying differing state laws, from joint ventures to negligence laws, and grasp the intricacies of interstate legal disputes.

rnorth
Download Presentation

true conflicts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. true conflicts

  2. Lilienthal v Kaufman (Ore. 1964)- D (Ore) went to Cal and entered into an agreement w/ P (Cal) for joint venture- D executed in Cal two promissory notes- P demanded payment on notes- D declared spendthrift under Ore law- No such law in Cal

  3. Bernkrant v Fowler (Cal. 1961)

  4. People v One 1953 Ford Victoria automobile mortgaged in TX moved to Cal by mortgagor seized in connection with drug trafficking mortgagee’s interest forfeit under Cal law Should Cal or Tex law by applied by a Cal court?

  5. Bernhard v Harrah’s Club (Cal. 1976)

  6. Resident of Mass, driving truck in CT, causes injury to CT P • D broke speed limit, which creates irrebuttable presumption of negligence under CT law, but not under Mass law • “If the [Mass] driver causes injury to [a CT] resident while driving in [CT] at a speed in excess of the [CT] speed limit, [CT]'s per se rule should be applied. [CT] has an interest in implementing its regulatory provision, and its interest in the application of its loss-distribution rule offsets [Mass]'s corresponding loss-distribution interest.”

  7. Assume instead both P and D are from Mass • Accident in CT • “The [CT] regulatory interest will not be impaired significantly if it is subordinated in the comparatively rare instances involving two nonresidents, who are residents of a state or states that reject the per se subrule. Conduct on [CT] highways will not be affected by knowledge of [Mass] residents that the [CT] per se rule will not be applied to them if the person they injure happens to be a co-citizen.”

  8. P, Cal corp, sent VP to La, injured by negligence of employee of La corp. • Cal law allows suits by corp for loss of services of employee • La law does not

  9. Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co. (Cal. 1978) • P, Cal corporation, sent VP to La • There VP was injured by negligence of employee of La corporation • Cal law allows suits by a corporation for loss of services of employee • La law does not

  10. New York’s Neumeier Rules

  11. Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993)- Cooney (MO) injured in MO by machinery owned by Mueller (MO)- Machinery manufactured by Hill Acme- Sold in NY through Osgood (NY) to a Buffalo Co that later sold it to Mueller- Cooney received workers comp from Mueller- Brought NY products liability action against Osgood- Osgood impleaded Mueller & Hill Acme for contribution- Under MO law, if you’ve paid workers comp you are freed of other obligations, including 3rd party contribution actions- Mueller liable for contribution under NY law

  12. Under the first Neumeier rule, if parties share a common domicile, and that domicile’s law has a loss allocating rule, then that law should control….

More Related