"Arbitrary and Fortuitous"? The Revival of Territorialism in American Choice of Law
| dc.contributor.author | Brilmayer, Lea | |
| dc.contributor.author | Halbhuber, Fred | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-12-18T16:28:16Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-12-18T16:28:16Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Lea Brilmayer & Fred Halbhuber, "Arbitrary and Fortuitous"? The Revival of Territorialism in American Choice of Law, 61 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 559 (2024). | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/18471 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Most Americans probably take it for granted that the United States is a collection of territorially defined states. They would be surprised to hear the opinion of certain legal academics-that when deciding which state's law applied, it shouldn't matter where the plaintiff was injured or where the contract was formed, because state boundaries are "arbitrary and fortuitous." But this seems to be the opinion of a number of American Conflict of Laws professors, who have spread this idea to American judges over the last several decades. The time is ripe for the revival of an important concept in American choice of law: territorialism. | en_US |
| dc.publisher | San Diego Law Review | en_US |
| dc.subject | Law; State's law; Conflict of Laws; Territorialism | en_US |
| dc.title | "Arbitrary and Fortuitous"? The Revival of Territorialism in American Choice of Law | en_US |
| rioxxterms.version | NA | en_US |
| rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2024-12-18T16:28:28Z | |
| refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2024 |
