Pub Date : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1163/9789004219267_026
P. Larsen, J. Sweeney, J. Gillick
{"title":"List of Principal Cases","authors":"P. Larsen, J. Sweeney, J. Gillick","doi":"10.1163/9789004219267_026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004219267_026","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124222275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1163/9789004435889_001
{"title":"Preliminary Material","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004435889_001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435889_001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131289896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1163/9789004435889_009
Rjr Nabisco
Table of
表
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2016: Thirtieth Annual Survey","authors":"Rjr Nabisco","doi":"10.1163/9789004435889_009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435889_009","url":null,"abstract":"Table of","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130218765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2000: As the Century Turns","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.2307/840920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/840920","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116706968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1163/9789004435889_024
{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004435889_024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435889_024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130984186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2003: Seventeenth Annual Survey","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.2307/4144446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/4144446","url":null,"abstract":"VII. STATUTES OF LIMITATION 45 1. Restatement (Second) § 142 45 2. Borrowing Statutes 49 VIII. CONTRACTS 51 1. Contracts with a Choice-of-law Clause 51 2. Contracts without a Choice-of-law Clause 55 X. INSUR CE ...... Automob l Insur nc Conflicts . . . . 5","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125171409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey of American choice-of-law cases. It is written at the request of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws and is intended as a service to fellow teachers of conflicts law, both in and outside the United States. Its purpose remains the same as it has been from the beginning: to inform, rather than to advocate. This Survey covers cases decided by American state and federal appellate courts from January 1 to December 31, 2013, and posted on Westlaw by January 15, 2014. Of the 1,356 cases that meet these parameters, the Survey focuses on those cases that may contribute something new to the development or understanding of conflicts law — and, particularly, choice of law.This Survey is longer than the Surveys of any of the previous 26 years because 2013 produced more, and more noteworthy, cases than any of the previous years. The following are some of the highlights: (1) Five decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court holding, respectively, that: (a) The Alien Tort Statute does not apply to conduct and injury occurring entirely in another country; (b) Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines “marriage” for federal law purposes so as to exclude same-sex relationships, is unconstitutional; (c) The Federal Arbitration Act trumps the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act; (d) The “first sale” doctrine as codified in the Copyright Act applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad and first sold abroad; and (e) The National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that sets more stringent standards for proof of citizenship when registering to vote; (2) A sixth Supreme Court decision explaining the methodology that federal courts should use when evaluating venue challenges in cases involving choice-of-forum clauses; (3) Two federal appellate decisions involving piracy off the Somali coast, and several decisions involving the extraterritorial reach of federal statutes in civil and criminal cases; (4) Several state court decisions striving to protect consumers, employees, and other weak parties through the few cracks left by the Supreme Court’s decisions on arbitration and choice-of-forum clauses; (5) An assortment of interesting cases involving products liability, other cross-border torts, economic torts, and other tort conflicts; (6) A case holding that enforcement of a Japanese tort judgment against a California Church is not “state action” triggering constitutional scrutiny under the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause, and that the judgment is not repugnant to public policy; (7) A case holding that one state’s dismissal of an action on statute of limitation grounds is a dismissal “on the merits,” barring a second action on the same claim in another state; and(8) A case defining “habitual residence” and “wrongful” removal or retention of a child under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2013: Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.5131/ajcl.2014.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2014.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This is the Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey of American choice-of-law cases. It is written at the request of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws and is intended as a service to fellow teachers of conflicts law, both in and outside the United States. Its purpose remains the same as it has been from the beginning: to inform, rather than to advocate. This Survey covers cases decided by American state and federal appellate courts from January 1 to December 31, 2013, and posted on Westlaw by January 15, 2014. Of the 1,356 cases that meet these parameters, the Survey focuses on those cases that may contribute something new to the development or understanding of conflicts law — and, particularly, choice of law.This Survey is longer than the Surveys of any of the previous 26 years because 2013 produced more, and more noteworthy, cases than any of the previous years. The following are some of the highlights: (1) Five decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court holding, respectively, that: (a) The Alien Tort Statute does not apply to conduct and injury occurring entirely in another country; (b) Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines “marriage” for federal law purposes so as to exclude same-sex relationships, is unconstitutional; (c) The Federal Arbitration Act trumps the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act; (d) The “first sale” doctrine as codified in the Copyright Act applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad and first sold abroad; and (e) The National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that sets more stringent standards for proof of citizenship when registering to vote; (2) A sixth Supreme Court decision explaining the methodology that federal courts should use when evaluating venue challenges in cases involving choice-of-forum clauses; (3) Two federal appellate decisions involving piracy off the Somali coast, and several decisions involving the extraterritorial reach of federal statutes in civil and criminal cases; (4) Several state court decisions striving to protect consumers, employees, and other weak parties through the few cracks left by the Supreme Court’s decisions on arbitration and choice-of-forum clauses; (5) An assortment of interesting cases involving products liability, other cross-border torts, economic torts, and other tort conflicts; (6) A case holding that enforcement of a Japanese tort judgment against a California Church is not “state action” triggering constitutional scrutiny under the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause, and that the judgment is not repugnant to public policy; (7) A case holding that one state’s dismissal of an action on statute of limitation grounds is a dismissal “on the merits,” barring a second action on the same claim in another state; and(8) A case defining “habitual residence” and “wrongful” removal or retention of a child under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"29 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120823449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the Twenty-Third Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It is written at the request of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws and is intended as a service to fellow teachers and students of conflicts law, both within and outside the United States. Its purpose is to inform, rather than to advocate. The Survey covers cases decided by American state and federal appellate courts from January 1 to December 31, 2009, and posted on Westlaw before the end of the year. Of the 1,490 conflicts cases meeting both of these parameters, the Survey focuses on those cases that may contribute something new to the development or understanding of conflicts law - and particularly choice of law. For the conflicts afficionados, 2009 brought many noteworthy developments, including the enactment of the second choice-of-law codification for tort conflicts in the United States, and a plethora of interesting cases, such as the following: - Several cases brought under the Alien Torts Statute (ATS) involving human rights abuses in foreign sites, including Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, one case denying a Bivens remedy to a victim of “extraordinary rendition,” and one case allowing an ATS action against an American pharmaceutical company for nonconsensual medical experiments on children in Nigeria; - Two cases holding that the Holy See was amenable to suit under the tortious activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act for sexual abuses allegedly committed by clergymen in the United States; - Two cases declaring unconstitutional two California statutes (dealing with Nazi looted artwork and the Armenian Genocide, respectively) as infringing on the Federal Government’s exclusive power over foreign affairs; - Several cases dealing with the recognition of same-sex marriages and their implications on issues of parentage, adoption, and child custody; Several cases striking down (and a few enforcing) class-action or class-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts; - A Minnesota case holding that Panama’s blocking statute did not prevent dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds an action arising from events occurring in Panama; and - A case of legal malpractice for mishandling a conflicts issue, a case involving alienation of affections and “criminal conversation,” and the usual assortment of tort, product liability, and statute of limitation conflicts.
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.5131/AJCL.2009.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2009.0009","url":null,"abstract":"This is the Twenty-Third Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It is written at the request of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws and is intended as a service to fellow teachers and students of conflicts law, both within and outside the United States. Its purpose is to inform, rather than to advocate. The Survey covers cases decided by American state and federal appellate courts from January 1 to December 31, 2009, and posted on Westlaw before the end of the year. Of the 1,490 conflicts cases meeting both of these parameters, the Survey focuses on those cases that may contribute something new to the development or understanding of conflicts law - and particularly choice of law. For the conflicts afficionados, 2009 brought many noteworthy developments, including the enactment of the second choice-of-law codification for tort conflicts in the United States, and a plethora of interesting cases, such as the following: - Several cases brought under the Alien Torts Statute (ATS) involving human rights abuses in foreign sites, including Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, one case denying a Bivens remedy to a victim of “extraordinary rendition,” and one case allowing an ATS action against an American pharmaceutical company for nonconsensual medical experiments on children in Nigeria; - Two cases holding that the Holy See was amenable to suit under the tortious activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act for sexual abuses allegedly committed by clergymen in the United States; - Two cases declaring unconstitutional two California statutes (dealing with Nazi looted artwork and the Armenian Genocide, respectively) as infringing on the Federal Government’s exclusive power over foreign affairs; - Several cases dealing with the recognition of same-sex marriages and their implications on issues of parentage, adoption, and child custody; Several cases striking down (and a few enforcing) class-action or class-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts; - A Minnesota case holding that Panama’s blocking statute did not prevent dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds an action arising from events occurring in Panama; and - A case of legal malpractice for mishandling a conflicts issue, a case involving alienation of affections and “criminal conversation,” and the usual assortment of tort, product liability, and statute of limitation conflicts.","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125823315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the Twenty-First Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It covers cases decided by American state or federal courts from January 1 to December 31, 2007, and reported during the same period. Of the 3,676 conflicts cases meeting both of these parameters, the Survey focuses on the cases that deal with the choice-of-law part of conflicts law, and then discusses those cases that may add something new to the development or understanding of that part. The Survey is intended as a service to fellow teachers and students of conflicts law, both within and outside the United States. Its purpose is to inform rather than to advocate. The following are among the cases reviewed in the Survey: A California Supreme Court decision involving recordings of cross border communications and another California case raising issues of cross-border discrimination in managing a web site; a product-liability decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court backtracking from its earlier pro-plaintiff decisions, and several other cases continuing to apply the pro-defendant law of the victim's home state and place of injury; several cases arising out of the events of September 11, 2001, and a few cases involving claims of torture (by them and us); the first guest statute conflict in years, as well as a case eerily similar to Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.; two cases in which foreign plaintiffs succeeded, and many more cases in which US plaintiffs failed, to obtain certification of a nationwide class action; a case involving alienation of affections and one involving palimony between non-cohabitants; several cases involving deadly combinations of choice-of-law, choice-of-forum, and arbitration clauses; three cases involving the paternity or maternity of children born after artificial insemination, in three different combinations (known sperm donor, unknown sperm donor, and unknown egg donor); a case involving the child of a Vermont civil union and holding that DOMA does not trump the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act; a case involving the constitutionality of a Missouri statute affecting out-of-state abortions of Missouri minors; and one US Supreme Court decision allowing federal courts to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without first affirming their jurisdiction, and another decision exonerating Microsoft from patent infringement charges arising from partly foreign conduct.
这是第21届美国法律选择案例年度调查。它涵盖了2007年1月1日至12月31日期间美国州或联邦法院判决的案件，并在同一时期报告。在符合这两个参数的3,676个冲突案例中，《调查》侧重于处理冲突法中法律选择部分的案例，然后讨论那些可能为该部分的发展或理解增加一些新内容的案例。该调查旨在为美国国内外的冲突法教师和学生提供服务。它的目的是提供信息而不是提倡。调查中审查的案例包括:加州最高法院一项涉及跨境通信录音的判决，以及加州另一项涉及网站管理中跨境歧视问题的案件;新泽西州最高法院的一项产品责任裁决推翻了先前对原告有利的裁决，以及其他几起案件继续适用受害者所在州和受伤地点的被告有利的法律;2001年9月11日事件引发的几起案件，以及一些涉及(他们和我们)声称遭受酷刑的案件;这是多年来第一次宾客法规冲突，也是一个与舒尔茨诉美国童子军公司(Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.)极其相似的案件;两起外国原告成功获得全国集体诉讼证明的案件，以及更多美国原告失败的案件;感情转让案件和非同居人赡养费案件各一起;几起涉及法律选择、诉讼地选择和仲裁条款致命组合的案件;三例涉及人工授精后出生的孩子的父亲或母亲，以三种不同的组合(已知的精子捐献者，未知的精子捐献者和未知的卵子捐献者);一个涉及佛蒙特州民事结合的孩子的案件，并认为《捍卫婚姻法案》不优于《父母绑架预防法案》;涉及密苏里州有关未成年人在州外堕胎的法规是否合宪性的案件;美国最高法院的一项裁决允许联邦法院在不首先确认其管辖权的情况下以不方便地为由驳回诉讼，另一项裁决免除了微软因部分外国行为而引起的专利侵权指控。
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007: Twenty-First Annual Survey","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.1093/AJCL/AVY006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCL/AVY006","url":null,"abstract":"This is the Twenty-First Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It covers cases decided by American state or federal courts from January 1 to December 31, 2007, and reported during the same period. Of the 3,676 conflicts cases meeting both of these parameters, the Survey focuses on the cases that deal with the choice-of-law part of conflicts law, and then discusses those cases that may add something new to the development or understanding of that part. The Survey is intended as a service to fellow teachers and students of conflicts law, both within and outside the United States. Its purpose is to inform rather than to advocate. The following are among the cases reviewed in the Survey: A California Supreme Court decision involving recordings of cross border communications and another California case raising issues of cross-border discrimination in managing a web site; a product-liability decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court backtracking from its earlier pro-plaintiff decisions, and several other cases continuing to apply the pro-defendant law of the victim's home state and place of injury; several cases arising out of the events of September 11, 2001, and a few cases involving claims of torture (by them and us); the first guest statute conflict in years, as well as a case eerily similar to Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.; two cases in which foreign plaintiffs succeeded, and many more cases in which US plaintiffs failed, to obtain certification of a nationwide class action; a case involving alienation of affections and one involving palimony between non-cohabitants; several cases involving deadly combinations of choice-of-law, choice-of-forum, and arbitration clauses; three cases involving the paternity or maternity of children born after artificial insemination, in three different combinations (known sperm donor, unknown sperm donor, and unknown egg donor); a case involving the child of a Vermont civil union and holding that DOMA does not trump the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act; a case involving the constitutionality of a Missouri statute affecting out-of-state abortions of Missouri minors; and one US Supreme Court decision allowing federal courts to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without first affirming their jurisdiction, and another decision exonerating Microsoft from patent infringement charges arising from partly foreign conduct.","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123468113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2004: Eighteenth Annual Survey","authors":"Symeon C. Symeonides","doi":"10.1093/AJCL/53.3.559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCL/53.3.559","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":405047,"journal":{"name":"Choice of Law in Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129681163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：