Outline of horizontal and vertical law

Outline of horizontal and vertical law

Horizontal Law: Due Process and the Full Faith and Credit Clauses
Courts are generally given a great deal of deference in deciding which law to apply in a given case…
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981)
Man killed in motorcycle crash, surviving spouse sues insurer for coverage. Question of whether coverage of multiple cars can be ‘stacked’ to give larger claim. Can in one state but not the other. Accident in one state, brought suit in another. Supreme Court of state applies law of court’s state, finding sufficient contacts through job in state, towns close together so accident could be anticipated to occur there (even though it didn’t), and surviving spouse became resident of state before action instituted. Supreme Court reviews, finding not an abuse of discretion to apply particular choice of law here, even where accident occurred in a state where there seemed to be more contacts (but did outline that there must be a minimal amount of significant contacts within the state to pass constitutional muster).
-dissent makes point that job was unrelated to the accident and that state where accident occurred seemed to have more interest in hearing the case.

Two-Part Test Emerging From Allstate:

Presumption that the forum will be allowed to apply its own law provided that such a decision is fundamentally fair, meaning no unfair surprise by applying a particular choice of law. Generally there is no surprise where parties have benefited from the laws of the state.
The state must have an interest in the case other than as the forum chosen by the plaintiff. Look to see if policies and principles of that state’s laws are at issue in the case.

Vertical Law: Federalism, Preemption, and the Foreign Affairs Power
-come into play in transnational cases to put more limitations on the possible actions of a state.

Conflicting means of achieving the same goal can be a reason for invalidating state application of law internationally…
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000)
Question of the validity of a Massachusetts law restricting ability of state agencies to purchase goods and services from companies doing business in Burma. Court finds law invalid under Supremacy Clause of the constitution, since it conflicted in particular parts with federal statute that placed sanctions on Burma. Outlines federal preemption in two areas. (1) when Congress intends a federal statute to ‘occupy the field’ State law is naturally preempted to the extent it conflicts with a federal statute and (2) where state legislation is an obstacle to full compliance with federal statute. Here, state statute was obstacle to federal compliance because federal law allowed for waiver for national security purposes (unlike State law ) and state law prevented President from speaking with “one voice” in diplomatic community on the issue of sanctions. The fact that both statutes had common goals did not render harmless the conflicting means.
-may have expanded federal preemption of state law in the international context, since earlier Congress would specifically state they intended to preempt state law.

Helms-Burton Law: legislation passed by Congress largely parallel to legislation in the Crosby case, with two additional features. country specific to Cuba, and sets up a civil remedy for those found trafficking property (generally those associated with the Cuban government). Intended to have collateral effects for those having relations with Cuba.

A seemingly contradictory position to that taken in Crosby…
Gerling Global Insurance Co. v. Low (9th Cir. 2001)
Holocaust relief act passed by CA requiring information of insurers in the state on their policies of Holocaust victims, to be stored in public registry. Plaintiffs insurers sued alleging violation of federal law (commerce, Due Process , and foreign affairs powers). Court found not in violation because federal law specifically left regulation of insurers to states (so did not intend to occupy the field) and that information requirements of state law actually reinforced federal executive efforts to compensate victims of Holocaust.

2. Integrating the Doctrines of U.S. States

Territorial (Restatement I): lex loci delecti. Where did ‘it’ happen? Created fights over what was important ‘it’.
Most Significant Relationship (Restatement II). Sometimes included a lex loci presumption, to be defeated if other contacts showed a different state had a stronger relationship. Questions arose over what relationships are significant.
Seems to be the approach in favor when federal questions are at issue.
Interest Analysis. Which state’s interests are dominant? Focus only on the content of state laws to see if there interests are advanced, rather than the factual evidence of contacts in a case. But would still have to balance state interests.

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

About the Author/s and Rewiever/s

Author: admin

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: admin

Mentioned in these Entries

Due Process, State law, country.


Posted

in

, , ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *