Talk:Conflict of laws in the United States

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States courts and judges Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A DISASTER!

This article is a disaster. Even if I knew not the first thing about conflicts, I'd be wondering, "what's this 'traditional approach.'" Someone should clean it up. 76.172.55.115 06:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A disaster indeed! A wiki article, presumably written by a law student, with not a single reference to an academic source or anything whatsoever? No mention of the essential theorists, like Baxter for comparative analysis, Leflar for the better law theory, and nothing about the 2nd Restatement on Conflicts! I had to go google these stuff up (a simple few searches were all it took), and I'm not even American!

Incorrect Summary of Rule for Phillips Petroleum Company v. Shutts

The holding reflected in the article is incorrect. The Petitioner's argument that was completely rejected by the court was that the substantive laws of each state in which any plaintiff resides should be consulted. The Supreme Court stated "[w]e therefore hold that the protection afforded the plaintiff class members by the Kansas statute [the requires members of a plaintiff class to be notified of the suit and informing them they have the right to 'opt out'] satisfies the Due Process Clause." There were 33,000 plaintiffs in the suit, and even though there were some that could not be contacted, the Due Process Clause was still satisfied because "a class action plaintiff is not required to fend for himself." Phillips Petroleum Company v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985). Bakeman33 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

What consitutes references for an article like this? Does saying a certain redlinked court case had a decision constitute a reference? RJFJR (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different from "Full Faith and Credit"

The concept of conflict of laws is distinct from the Full Faith and Credit issue, which is merely one aspect of conflict of laws. Full Faith and Credit is about how the Constitution requires states to recognize each others' judgments. Conflict of laws is also about what law to apply to reach the judgment in the first place. bd2412 T 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more common title for Currie's theory is "governmental interests analysis"

For a long time, this article has incorrectly referred to Brainerd Currie's theory as "balance of interests analysis." Actually, the literature generally refers to his theory as "governmental interests analysis." Any objections before I fix this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove unsourced / unreferenced content

As I am unable to find suitable references for large amounts of the content, I would propose to remove from the article all content which remains unsourced after a reasonable opportunity is given the community to provide adequate source materials / references. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]