Questions on the Land Taboo

1) Remember the criticisms that were made in class of the 1st Restatement's situs rule for choice of law governing real property? Indeed, as the book suggests, isn't the application of Connecticut law to the facts in Clarke arguably unconstitutional, given Connecticut's meager interests? Given this, isn't it odd to argue that only the Connecticut court could have jurisdiction to determine the rights of South Carolinians in Connecticut land?

2) Even if one accepts that only a Connecticut court can have jurisdiction to determine the rights of South Carolinians in Connecticut land, doesn't it follow from Durfee v Duke that the improper assertion of jurisdiction over the property by the South Carolina court in Clarke is res judicata and so now must be given Full Faith and Credit by a Connecticut court?

3) What did the plaintiff do wrong in Fall v Eastin? Was the problem that she appealed to the Washington Commissioner's deed instead of the Washington decree? Or would she have been any better off by appealing to the decree?

4) Isn't the upshot of Fall v Eastin the evisceration of Clarke? Imagine that  the Washington court had ordered E.W. Fall to deed the property to his wife and, threatened by contempt sanctions, he did deed the property. Wouldn't the Nebraska court be bound then?