595:, i.e. law of the forum state. For example, suppose State X has a rule that says that if property located in State X is conveyed by a contract entered into in any other state, then the law of that other state will govern the validity of the contract. Suppose also that State Y has a rule that says that if a contract entered into in State Y conveys property located in any other state, then the law of that other state will govern the validity of the contract. Now suppose that party A conveys land located in State X to party B through a contract entered into in State Y. If a lawsuit arising from that transaction is brought in State X, the law of State X requires the courts of that state to apply the law of the state where the contract was made, which is state Y. However, the courts of State X might note that a court in State Y would apply the law of State X, because that is where the land is located, and the law of State Y follows the land.
646:
damages for injuries received in an auto accident. B lives in State Y, which caps tort damages for injuries received in an auto accident at $ 100,000. While traveling through State X, B causes an auto accident in which A is seriously injured. A sues B in B's home State of Y, but asks the court there to apply the law of State X. In this situation, it can be argued that State X has chosen to place no limit on recovery in order to protect its citizens and keep its roads safer; while State Y has chosen to place a limit on tort damages to prevent tort abuse and keep insurance costs down. Therefore, State X's law protects its plaintiffs, and State Y's law protects its defendants - the laws serve opposite purposes, but each state has an interest in its own law being applied, to advance its own purposes.
655:
colluding in order to collect from insurance companies. Other states permit such suits, on the theory that people should be able to recover for their injuries, and possible collusion can be presented as a factor for the jury to deal with. Suppose that a couple, A and B, live in state X, which prohibits these suits, and they travel to state Y, which permits these suits. While in state Y, A negligently injures B, and upon their return to state X, B sues A in the court of state X, asserting that the law of state Y should govern. In this case, since neither party is from state Y, state Y has no interest in the application of the law to these persons.
1205:
24:
857:, 486 U.S. 717 (1988), the Court refused to apply this rule when Kansas had chosen to apply its own statute of limitations to causes raised by a diverse population of class-action plaintiffs. There the Court held that they had long been viewed as procedural matters. The states could choose to use their own with no concern for violating the Constitution.
637:, who outlined the test in a series of articles during the 1950s and 1960s. Currie's revolutionary work "dominated American choice-of-law thinking in the United States for almost half a century". Although Currie's critics now outnumber his defenders, interest analysis is still the most popular vehicle for teaching conflict of laws in
820:, 449 U.S. 302 (1981) determined that the same analysis applies to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment; and that both are satisfied so long as there are sufficient aggregate contacts between the forum and the event giving rise to the cause of action. In the case itself, a
672:
The greatest flaw with Currie's analysis—and the reason it has been subject to harsh criticism for many years—is that in the real world, false conflicts and apparent conflicts are both relatively rare. Therefore, "almost all roads lead to the lex fori". Currie aggressively defended this outcome, but
620:
The seat of the relationship test specifically examines the relationship between the parties to the lawsuit, and uses the law of the state in which the relationship between the parties was most significant. For example, if two people who live in State X meet and develop a relationship in State Y, and
536:
rules when a legal action implicates the substantive laws of more than one jurisdiction and a court must determine which law is most appropriate to resolve the action. In the United States, the rules governing these matters have diverged from the traditional rules applied internationally. The outcome
574:
Until the 20th century, traditional choice of law rules were based on the principle that legal rights vest automatically at legally significant and ascertainable times and places. For example, a dispute regarding property would be decided by the law of the place the property was located. Disputes in
690:
The comparative impairment test asks which state's policies would suffer more if their law was not applied. This is similar to interest analysis, in that the interests of the state are taken into account - however, this test does not look to see which state benefits more from the application of its
602:
of State Y, not the "whole law" of State Y, which includes that state's law governing choice of law. The basic criticism of renvoi is that it can lead to an endless circle. In the above example, it could be argued that if the law of State Y points back to State X, then the law of State X would only
677:
observed, widespread adoption of his style of analysis at the international and interstate levels would result in "a legal order characterized by chaos and retaliation". Some courts have sought to distinguish different types of law, giving more weight to laws of foreign states that are intended to
699:
Use of the "better rule" test, like renvoi, is frowned upon because it appears to be little more than a gimmick to allow a court to apply the law of its own state. The test itself presupposes that, between the laws presented by the two or more states in which the action arose, there is one set of
662:
state. For example, suppose State X has a law that limits recovery in a tort suit, and state Y has no such limit. A plaintiff from State X suing a defendant from State Y will want the rule of State Y to apply rather than the limit imposed by state X; the defendant will want the State X's limit to
645:
A true conflict occurs when one state offers a protection to a particular party that another state does not, and the court of the state that offers no such protection is asked to apply the law of the state offering the protection. For example, suppose A, lives in State X, which has no cap on tort
578:
During the first half of the 20th century, the traditional conflict of laws approach came under criticism from some members of the U.S. legal community who saw it as rigid and arbitrary; the traditional method sometimes forced application of the laws of a state with no connection to either party,
828:
was killed in a motorcycle accident in
Wisconsin. The decedent's wife then moved to Minnesota, where she was appointed administratrix of her husband's estate. She sued the insurance company to recover a higher amount permitted under Minnesota law, and the courts agreed that this was permissible,
611:
The significant contacts test evaluates the contacts between the states and each party to the case, and determines which state has the most significant contacts with the litigation as a whole. This test has been criticized for failing to respect the sovereignty of the state in which the cause of
654:
A false or apparent conflict occurs when the state offering the protection has no actual interest in the endorsement of that protection against the particular parties to the case. For example, some states prohibit spouses from suing one another for negligent torts, in order to prevent them from
565:
in the Union mean that U.S. federal and state courts as of the mid-2010s were deciding around 5,000 conflict-of-laws cases each year—far more than the courts of any other country. As a result, Americans have accumulated "vast judicial experience in resolving conflicts cases".
846:
against an oil company that had failed to pay interest on certain leases. The Kansas court hearing the case simply assumed that the law of Kansas was adequate for all the claims. The
Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Kansas court was required to determine the law of
729:
could not constitutionally apply its own rule invalidating contract clauses that required any statute of limitations under two years to a contract that had no relation to Texas beyond the fact that the plaintiff was a Texas resident. The plaintiff had sued a
548:
created a "plurilegal federal union" in which there are four types of conflicts between different legal systems: federal vs. state, federal vs. foreign, state vs. state, and state vs. foreign. The first type are vertical conflicts resolved by
621:
a cause of action arises between them while they are traveling through State Z, a court of any state applying this test would probably apply the law of State Y, because that state is the seat of the relationship between these two parties.
641:, and it provides "the very language of contemporary conflicts theory". In interest analysis, the court must determine whether any conflict between the laws of the states is a true conflict, a false conflict, or an unprovided-for case.
761:
748:
owned by the company was lost in a fire. The plaintiff was living in Mexico at the time (although not a resident), but returned to Texas to file suit. These contacts were insufficient to satisfy the
985:, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803 (Ala. 1892) (holding Alabama employee could not sue Alabama employer for on-the-job injury because accident occurred in Mississippi whose law disallowed the cause of action)
700:
laws which is empirically better. Because courts will almost always presume that their own state has better laws, this is effectively a device to avoid applying choice of law principles altogether.
1174:
41:
1247:
1139:
994:
Brainerd Currie, Selected Essays on the
Conflict of Laws (1963); Robert A. Leflar, Choice Influencing Consideration in the Conflict of Laws, 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 267 (1966).
790:, 348 U.S. 66 (1954) held that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment was implicated when a couple who had bought an insurance policy in
561:), meaning that conflict of laws in the United States focuses on the latter three types. The complexity of American federalism and massive interstate diversity between
629:
The governmental interests test examines the interests of the states themselves, and the reasons for which the laws in question were passed. It is the brainchild of
1488:
598:
Most U.S. states frown upon renvoi in a choice of law situation. In this example, they would insist that the only law the courts of State X should look at is the
1442:
786:
753:
180:
1360:
869:– doctrine addressing a vertical conflict between federal and state sovereigns, in contrast to horizontal conflict of laws between coequal state sovereigns
1264:
579:
except that a tort or contract claim arose between the parties in that state. This period of intellectual ferment (which coincided with the rise of the
512:
851:
state on the substantive questions of law, and apply the laws of each state to the claims brought by plaintiffs from that state. In the related case of
1324:
1161:
678:
regulate conduct (e.g. prohibitions on disfavored activities), and less weight to laws of foreign states that are intended to allocate losses (e.g.
486:
88:
1436:
1375:
1355:
1156:
558:
60:
829:
because of the combination of the decedent's employment contacts with the state, and the insurance company's commercial contacts with the state.
691:
laws, but rather for situations in which the other state's interests will actually be harmed by the application of the laws of the forum state.
1224:
1132:
1259:
67:
1365:
1319:
1301:
1179:
1213:
74:
1232:
800:
1483:
1432:
1417:
1395:
1385:
1125:
1098:
1058:
1018:
941:
904:
545:
107:
56:
1427:
1422:
1400:
1350:
834:
781:
sued his employer for an injury received in
California, seeking relief that would be unavailable under the law of Massachusetts.
472:
1447:
1309:
1237:
1169:
816:
638:
808:
travels with the insured, and that policy holders who move from one state to another can expect to have the laws of their new
1254:
505:
45:
1345:
1189:
203:
1412:
1242:
766:
612:
action arose, and because courts can tip the balance in one way or another in deciding which contacts are significant.
1390:
1279:
709:
1380:
798:
sued the issuer of the policy under a provision in the
Louisiana law that permitted such suits. A decade later, in
721:
81:
34:
1452:
1314:
562:
498:
428:
416:
323:
1407:
1148:
674:
435:
1462:
1269:
1457:
853:
456:
390:
366:
173:
140:
1204:
630:
591:
Courts may look for a provision in the law of the choice of law state that permits the court to use the
423:
350:
1084:
1044:
1004:
927:
890:
479:
374:
211:
1287:
679:
341:
314:
147:
1194:
866:
749:
550:
442:
305:
274:
1094:
1088:
1054:
1048:
1014:
937:
900:
713:
243:
1008:
931:
894:
731:
554:
525:
296:
123:
1184:
634:
603:
once again require application of the law of State Y, and so forth and so on without end.
449:
809:
411:
382:
332:
260:
235:
744:
that was primarily insured in Mexico, which is where the "injury" had occurred when a
1477:
774:
716:
on the ability of states to apply their own law to events occurring in other states.
658:
An unprovided-for case is one in which each party is seeking to apply the law of the
580:
533:
529:
266:
159:
759:
The doctrine steadily developed in a series of cases over the following decades. In
839:
538:
406:
196:
649:
In such a case, if the interests are balanced, the law of the forum will prevail.
1329:
778:
741:
287:
281:
23:
770:
358:
220:
825:
821:
805:
795:
734:
1117:
838:, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), plaintiffs residing in all fifty states brought a
791:
765:, 306 U.S. 493 (1939), the court held that there was no violation of the
592:
229:
812:
apply to the interpretation of the insurer's liabilities on the policy.
745:
843:
738:
154:
726:
762:
Pacific
Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
1121:
583:
movement) gave birth to a number of innovative new approaches.
575:
tort would be decided by the place where the injury occurred.
17:
712:
has held that there are certain limitations imposed by the
804:, 377 U.S. 179 (1964), the court explicitly stated that
725:, 281 U.S. 397 (1930), the Court held that the state of
1079:
1077:
1039:
1037:
963:
7 Restatement (First)of
Conflict of Laws, §§208--310.
1338:
1300:
1278:
1223:
1212:
1155:
885:
883:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
666:In such a case, the law of the forum will prevail.
824:resident who was employed over the state line in
1093:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 103.
1053:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 104.
972:9 Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws, §377.
1013:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 97.
936:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 10.
899:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 6.
541:to apply the law of a different jurisdiction.
1133:
787:Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.
506:
8:
532:is the field of procedural law dealing with
719:In one of the earliest cases in this area,
537:of this process may require a court in one
1220:
1140:
1126:
1118:
680:tort immunity for charitable organizations
557:(and is therefore analyzed as an issue of
513:
499:
119:
773:applied its own law to a case in which a
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
704:United States Constitutional limitations
879:
464:
398:
252:
188:
132:
122:
57:"Conflict of laws in the United States"
1489:Conflict of laws of the United States
167:Conflict of laws in the United States
7:
46:adding citations to reliable sources
570:New approaches in the United States
801:Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.
14:
1203:
835:Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
682:; joint and several liability).
473:Enforcement of foreign judgments
22:
817:Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague
33:needs additional citations for
1:
1190:Bill (United States Congress)
983:Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Carroll
616:Seat of the relationship test
842:suit in the state courts of
777:employee of a Massachusetts
767:Full Faith and Credit Clause
710:United States Supreme Court
686:Comparative impairment test
625:Governmental interests test
1505:
722:Home Insurance Co. v. Dick
1315:Law School Admission Test
1201:
607:Significant contacts test
563:the laws of the 50 states
324:Lex loci delicti commissi
128:private international law
1484:Law of the United States
1149:Law of the United States
675:Arthur Taylor von Mehren
784:This was reaffirmed in
399:Substantive legal areas
854:Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman
695:The "better rule" test
457:Hague Trust Convention
391:Forum selection clause
367:Lex loci celebrationis
174:Public policy doctrine
631:University of Chicago
480:Anti-suit injunctions
351:Lex loci protectionis
189:Definitional elements
1325:Admission to the bar
1175:Separation of powers
754:Fourteenth Amendment
639:American law schools
546:federal Constitution
375:Choice of law clause
212:Forum non conveniens
42:improve this article
1265:International Trade
769:where the state of
342:Lex loci solutionis
315:Lex loci contractus
148:Incidental question
1361:Child sexual abuse
1351:Administrative law
1195:United States Code
1157:Constitutional law
1085:Symeonides, Symeon
1045:Symeonides, Symeon
1005:Symeonides, Symeon
928:Symeonides, Symeon
891:Symeonides, Symeon
867:Federal preemption
794:and then moved to
750:Due Process Clause
559:constitutional law
551:federal preemption
306:Lex loci rei sitae
275:Habitual residence
253:Connecting factors
1471:
1470:
1296:
1295:
1251:
714:U.S. Constitution
523:
522:
244:Lis alibi pendens
118:
117:
110:
92:
1496:
1371:Conflict of laws
1245:
1221:
1207:
1142:
1135:
1128:
1119:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1107:
1081:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1041:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1001:
995:
992:
986:
979:
973:
970:
964:
961:
955:
954:
952:
950:
924:
918:
917:
915:
913:
887:
600:law of contracts
555:Supremacy Clause
553:pursuant to the
526:Conflict of laws
515:
508:
501:
297:Lex loci arbitri
181:Hague Conference
141:Characterisation
124:Conflict of laws
120:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1467:
1366:Civil procedure
1334:
1292:
1274:
1215:
1208:
1199:
1185:Act of Congress
1159:
1151:
1146:
1116:
1115:
1105:
1103:
1101:
1083:
1082:
1075:
1065:
1063:
1061:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1003:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
980:
976:
971:
967:
962:
958:
948:
946:
944:
926:
925:
921:
911:
909:
907:
889:
888:
881:
876:
863:
706:
697:
688:
635:Brainerd Currie
627:
618:
609:
589:
572:
519:
450:Forced heirship
127:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
1502:
1500:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1476:
1475:
1469:
1468:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1440:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1376:Constitutional
1373:
1368:
1363:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1306:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1282:
1276:
1275:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1240:
1235:
1229:
1227:
1225:Federal courts
1218:
1210:
1209:
1202:
1200:
1198:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1166:
1164:
1153:
1152:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1137:
1130:
1122:
1114:
1113:
1099:
1073:
1059:
1033:
1019:
996:
987:
974:
965:
956:
942:
919:
905:
878:
877:
875:
872:
871:
870:
862:
859:
705:
702:
696:
693:
687:
684:
670:
669:
668:
667:
656:
652:
651:
650:
633:law professor
626:
623:
617:
614:
608:
605:
588:
585:
571:
568:
521:
520:
518:
517:
510:
503:
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
483:
482:
476:
475:
467:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
453:
452:
446:
445:
439:
438:
432:
431:
426:
420:
419:
414:
409:
401:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
387:
386:
378:
377:
371:
370:
362:
361:
355:
354:
346:
345:
337:
336:
333:Lex loci actus
328:
327:
319:
318:
310:
309:
301:
300:
292:
291:
284:
278:
277:
271:
270:
263:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
239:
238:
236:Forum shopping
233:
225:
224:
216:
215:
207:
206:
200:
199:
191:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
177:
176:
170:
169:
163:
162:
157:
151:
150:
144:
143:
135:
134:
130:
129:
116:
115:
98:September 2014
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1501:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1479:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1356:Child custody
1354:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1337:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1303:
1299:
1289:
1288:State supreme
1286:
1285:
1283:
1281:
1277:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1216:United States
1214:Courts of the
1211:
1206:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1143:
1138:
1136:
1131:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1102:
1100:9780190496722
1096:
1092:
1091:
1090:Choice of Law
1086:
1080:
1078:
1074:
1062:
1060:9780190496722
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:Choice of Law
1046:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1022:
1020:9780190496722
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:Choice of Law
1006:
1000:
997:
991:
988:
984:
978:
975:
969:
966:
960:
957:
945:
943:9780190496722
939:
935:
934:
933:Choice of Law
929:
923:
920:
908:
906:9780190496722
902:
898:
897:
896:Choice of Law
892:
886:
884:
880:
873:
868:
865:
864:
860:
858:
856:
855:
850:
845:
841:
837:
836:
830:
827:
823:
819:
818:
813:
811:
807:
803:
802:
797:
793:
789:
788:
782:
780:
776:
775:Massachusetts
772:
768:
764:
763:
757:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
736:
733:
728:
724:
723:
717:
715:
711:
703:
701:
694:
692:
685:
683:
681:
676:
665:
664:
661:
657:
653:
648:
647:
644:
643:
642:
640:
636:
632:
624:
622:
615:
613:
606:
604:
601:
596:
594:
586:
584:
582:
581:legal realism
576:
569:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
542:
540:
535:
534:choice of law
531:
530:United States
527:
516:
511:
509:
504:
502:
497:
496:
494:
493:
488:
485:
484:
481:
478:
477:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
463:
458:
455:
454:
451:
448:
447:
444:
441:
440:
437:
434:
433:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
397:
392:
389:
388:
385:
384:
380:
379:
376:
373:
372:
369:
368:
364:
363:
360:
357:
356:
353:
352:
348:
347:
344:
343:
339:
338:
335:
334:
330:
329:
326:
325:
321:
320:
317:
316:
312:
311:
308:
307:
303:
302:
299:
298:
294:
293:
290:
289:
285:
283:
280:
279:
276:
273:
272:
269:
268:
267:Lex domicilii
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
251:
246:
245:
241:
240:
237:
234:
232:
231:
227:
226:
223:
222:
218:
217:
214:
213:
209:
208:
205:
202:
201:
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
187:
182:
179:
178:
175:
172:
171:
168:
165:
164:
161:
160:Choice of law
158:
156:
153:
152:
149:
146:
145:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:Preliminaries
131:
125:
121:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
1418:Human rights
1370:
1339:Types of law
1280:State courts
1180:Civil rights
1104:. Retrieved
1089:
1064:. Retrieved
1049:
1024:. Retrieved
1009:
999:
990:
982:
977:
968:
959:
947:. Retrieved
932:
922:
910:. Retrieved
895:
852:
848:
840:class-action
833:
831:
815:
814:
799:
785:
783:
760:
758:
720:
718:
707:
698:
689:
671:
659:
628:
619:
610:
599:
597:
590:
577:
573:
543:
539:jurisdiction
524:
487:Revenue rule
381:
365:
349:
340:
331:
322:
313:
304:
295:
286:
265:
242:
228:
219:
210:
197:Jurisdiction
166:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
1330:Reading law
1162:legislation
779:corporation
742:corporation
465:Enforcement
288:Lex patriae
282:Nationality
1478:Categories
1310:Law school
1255:Bankruptcy
1170:Federalism
874:References
771:California
359:Proper law
221:Lex causae
68:newspapers
1401:Procedure
1391:Corporate
1302:Education
1106:March 18,
1066:March 18,
1026:March 18,
981:See e.g.
949:March 18,
912:March 18,
826:Minnesota
822:Wisconsin
806:insurance
796:Louisiana
735:reinsurer
204:Procedure
1423:Juvenile
1396:Criminal
1386:Property
1381:Contract
1346:Abortion
1243:District
1087:(2016).
1047:(2016).
1007:(2016).
930:(2016).
893:(2016).
861:See also
810:domicile
792:Illinois
732:New York
593:lex fori
443:Property
429:Marriage
417:Contract
412:Capacity
383:Dépeçage
261:Domicile
230:Lex fori
1433:Privacy
1428:Martial
1238:Appeals
1233:Supreme
752:of the
746:tugboat
739:Mexican
663:apply.
528:in the
436:Divorce
82:scholar
1448:Sports
1408:Energy
1320:US bar
1260:Claims
1097:
1057:
1017:
940:
903:
844:Kansas
587:Renvoi
407:Status
155:Renvoi
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
1463:Trust
1453:State
1437:State
737:of a
727:Texas
660:other
89:JSTOR
75:books
1458:Tort
1443:Race
1248:list
1160:and
1108:2023
1095:ISBN
1068:2023
1055:ISBN
1028:2023
1015:ISBN
951:2023
938:ISBN
914:2023
901:ISBN
849:each
708:The
544:The
424:Tort
126:and
61:news
1413:Gun
1270:Tax
832:In
673:as
44:by
1480::
1076:^
1036:^
882:^
756:.
1439:)
1435:(
1250:)
1246:(
1141:e
1134:t
1127:v
1110:.
1070:.
1030:.
953:.
916:.
514:e
507:t
500:v
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
