Choice of Law confusion
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:32 pm
I cannot understand this - Themis is telling me that for choice of law the analysis is as such:
1. IS there a conflict between state and fed law?
2. If so, is there a specific federal law on point? If so, use it.
3. If not, use the outcome determinative test to see whether it is a substance or procedure issue.
4. If substance, use state, if procedure, use fed
Is this correct?
If this is correct that means we use fed law over state law on BOTH substantive AND procedural issues (as long as it is on point)
This goes against everything I learned, because in all the other lectures and outlines they kept saying "state for substsance state for substance!" there is even a quote in the outline "In a diversity action, the district court is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the district court is located"
This seems totally contradictory
1. IS there a conflict between state and fed law?
2. If so, is there a specific federal law on point? If so, use it.
3. If not, use the outcome determinative test to see whether it is a substance or procedure issue.
4. If substance, use state, if procedure, use fed
Is this correct?
If this is correct that means we use fed law over state law on BOTH substantive AND procedural issues (as long as it is on point)
This goes against everything I learned, because in all the other lectures and outlines they kept saying "state for substsance state for substance!" there is even a quote in the outline "In a diversity action, the district court is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the district court is located"
This seems totally contradictory