Questions on Full Faith and Credit and the Conflicts of Laws

Bradford

1) Why is this a Full Faith and Credit case rather than a due process case?

2) Is the court using Full Faith and Credit to limit a state's power to apply its own law (leaving a number of states still free to constitutionally apply their law). Or is it arguing that Full Faith and Credit actually mandates the application of a particular law (in other words, is the court trying to constitutionalize choice of law)?

3) How would the choice of law here be resolved under the 1st Restatement? How about under interest analysis? What are the interests of NH and VT in the application of their laws?

4) The court rejects the argument that because NH can use the public policy exception to reject VT law, application of NH law is constitutionally permissible. This is what it says: "But the company is in a position different from that of a plaintiff who seeks to enforce a cause of action conferred by the laws of another state. The right which it claims should be given effect is set up by way of defense to an asserted liability; and to a defense different considerations apply. Compare Home Insurance Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397. A state may, on occasion, decline to enforce a foreign cause of action. In so doing, it merely denies a remedy, leaving unimpaired the plaintiff's substantive right, so that he is free to enforce it elsewhere. But to refuse to give effect to a substantive defense under the applicable law of another state, as under the circumstances here presented, subjects the defendant to irremediable liability. This may not be done." What is Brandeis's interpretation of the public policy exception?

Alaska Packers

5) Bradford made it look as if the Full Faith and Credit Clause would mandate the application of a particular law in all cases. How do things stand after Alaska Packers?

Pacific Employers

6) How is this case different from Bradford? Is Bradford overruled? How does the court try to distinguish it?

7) How is Pacific Employers compatible with the purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Doesn't it encourage the state parochialism that the Clause was intended to end?

8) What kind of state interests are acceptable for Full Faith and Credit Clause purposes? Can a state assert any interest it wants?