Citation network
Allstate Ins. Co. Vs. Hague
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 302 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Allstate Ins. Co. v. HagueSearch
-
U.S. 302 (1980) Allstate Ins. Co. v. HagueSearch
-
lawsuit, may justify, in constitutional terms, application of the law of more than one jurisdiction. See, e.g., Watson v. EmployersSearch
-
n. 11, infra. See generally Clay v. SunSearch
-
In order to ensure that the choice of law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair, see Alaska Packers Assn. v. IndustrialSearch
-
Page 449 U. S. 309 Two instructive examples of such invalidation are Home Ins. Co. v. DickSearch
-
U. S. 397 (1930), and John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. YatesSearch
-
the selection of forum law rested exclusively on the presence of one nonsignificant forum contact. Home Ins. Co. v. DickSearch
-
of the forum State to the parties and the transaction was similarly attenuated in John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. YatesSearch
-
with the parties and the occurrence are obviously significant. Thus, this case is like Alaska Packers, Cardillo v. LibertySearch
-
Page 449 U. S. 312 In Cardillo v. LibertySearch
-
circumstances. In addition, Mr. Hague commuted to work in Minnesota, a contact which was important in Cardillo v. LibertySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cardillo v. LibertySearch
-
Alaska Packers Assn. v. IndustrialSearch
-
Home Ins. Co. v. DickSearch
-
S. 408 , n. 5. Employment status is not a sufficiently less important status than residence, see generally Carroll v. LanzaSearch
-
Clay v. SunSearch
-
respondent -- and a longstanding member of Minnesota's workforce -- Mr. Hague. See Hoopeston Canning Co. v. CullenSearch
-
The stipulated facts, sparse as they are, negate any such inference. While John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. YatesSearch
-
Minnesota had previously adopted the conceptual model developed by Professor Leflar in Milkovich v. SaariSearch
-
Court has examined the relevant contacts and resulting interests of the State whose law was applied. See, e.g., Nevada v. HallSearch
-
under the Due Process Clause for evaluating the constitutionality of choice of law decisions, see Alaska Packers Assn. v. IndustrialSearch
-
of State whose law was rejected), the Court has since abandoned the weighing of interests requirement. Carroll v. LanzaSearch
-
Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Richards v. UnitedSearch
-
Richards v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra at 369 U. S. 11 -12. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. DeltaSearch
-
U. S. 402 . There would be no jurisdiction in the Texas courts to entertain such a lawsuit today. See Rush v. SavchukSearch
-
Watson v. EmployersSearch
-
California and Alaska to determine the full faith and credit issue, such balancing is no longer required. See Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Court has upheld choice of law decisions challenged on constitutional grounds in numerous other decisions. See Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Watson v. EmployersSearch
-
Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
in case of injury suffered by Massachusetts employee temporarily in California in course of employment). Thus, Nevada v. HallSearch
-
supra, and Watson v. EmployersSearch
-
where the relevant contacts consisted of plaintiff's residence and the place of the injury. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
Accident Comm'n, supra, and Carroll v. LanzaSearch
-
of the injury where there existed some other link between that jurisdiction and the occurrence. See, e.g., Cardillo v. LibertySearch
-
Rosenthal v. WarrenSearch
-
Clark v. ClarkSearch
-
Tooker v. LopezSearch
-
Babcock v. JacksonSearch
-
Rosenthal v. WarrenSearch
-
Stacking was the rule in most States at the time the policy was issued. Indeed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Nelson v. EmployersSearch
-
of a State's contacts may result in divergent conclusions for jurisdiction and choice of law purposes. See Kulko v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Allstate Ins. Co. v. HagueSearch
-
and John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. YatesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial