Questions on Renvoi

1)    Is it really true in Pfau that Iowa was not interested in its guest statute applying?

2)    Assume that Iowa is not interested in its guest statute applying. Does it follow that Iowa is not interested in the rest of its law applying? Why isn’t Pfau simply a case in which Iowa law minus the guest statute applies? Wouldn’t this circumvent the whole renvoi issue?

3)    What are the arguments for never looking to another state’s choice-of-law rules when determining its interests? If one holds to such an approach, as many courts do, why do they look to choice-of-law rules to decide true conflicts?

4)    What are the arguments for not looking to another state’s First Restatement choice-of-law rules when determining its interests, but looking to its choice-of-law decisions when the other state itself uses interest analysis?

5)    What are the arguments for always looking to another state’s choice-of-law rules when determining its interests?

6)   What would Kramer say about California’s interests in its law applying if a California state court came to a decision that the California law does not apply due to a moderate and restrained interpretation? What if it decided that California law does not apply because of the application of the principle of comparative impairment?

7)    What is going on in American Motorists Ins. Co.? Is Maryland a lex loci contractus state? Is it an interest analysis state? Is it neither?