4 ms·
That seems like a meaningless distinction. If you can't have a case heard by a state court, then that state's laws can't be applied, by definition.
by ajross 2y ago
That seems like a meaningless distinction. If you can't have a case heard by a state court, then that state's laws can't be applied, by definition.
- otterley 2y agoThat is not true. State courts can apply foreign state laws, and federal courts can apply any state’s laws.
- ajross 2y agoAgain that seems needlessly pedantic. Has there ever been a case where a court applied a law from a regime where that regime's own courts lack jurisdiction? Again, in practice "laws apply" and "courts have jurisdiction" are isomorphic states. Complaining about an article making the very reasonable conflation seems nitpicky and silly.
- soco 2y agoI don't know how it is within the US but in Europe this is a common occurrence. Contracts with choice of law, international succession procedures, civil liabilities... even arbitration.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- otterley 2y agoThe article didn’t make that conflation at all. The author, a former professor of mine in law school, knows what he’s talking about (as do I). It was the commenter who was confused (as are you). Jurisdiction has nothing to do with whether laws are applicable to a case. It has to do with whether a particular court can hear a case. Personal jurisdiction questions go back hundreds of years to resolve issues like “is it just to force a defendant to travel hundreds of miles by horse and carriage to defend himself?” versus allowing him to defend himself closer to home. If the plaintiff sued Shopify in New York, this issue wouldn't have come up at all. (And, yes, a New York court can apply California law.) This stuff is all covered in first-year civil procedure in law school.
- michaelt 2y agoSort of yes, sort of no. For example, imagine an American tourist visiting the UK drives dangerously and kills a motorcyclist, then escapes to the US before being caught. A UK criminal court can order jail and a driving ban, but has no way to enforce the sentence unless the tourist decides to return to the UK, or the US decides to extradite. A US criminal court can't do anything, the crime took place outside of their jurisdiction. The victim's family can sue the tourist in a US civil court, and that court can take UK law into account - but can basically only impose a cash settlement that gets paid out of the tourist's insurance. They don't actually lose a cent. So in a sense one state's courts can apply foreign state laws. But in terms of results, i.e. days spent in jail, laws don't appear to apply across borders.
- otterley 2y agoIn American law, a "foreign state" is a term of art meaning another U.S. state or territory. It does not mean a foreign nation like the UK. International law is a whole other ball of wax, as you suggest.