Questions on the Public Policy Exception

1) Assume that Cardozo had accepted that the public policy exception applied in Loucks. What would he have done? Dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction? Applied New York law? Applied Massachusetts law without the offensive statute?

2) Is the Mertz case coherent? Can the public policy of a state mean "the law of the state, whether found in the Constitution, the statutes or judicial records." (p. 73 in both the 7th and 8th eds.)

3) What is the result of the application of the public policy exception in Mertz? Is the action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction? Is New York law applied? Is Connecticut law minus the offensive statute applied?

4) Is the public policy exception the only reason the court provides for avoiding Connecticut law in Mertz? Doesn't the court also rely upon recharacterization? What law would interest analysis recommend?

5) Consider the following case instead of Holzer. In addition to requiring that Holzer be dismissed from his job, German law also required that he pay for clearing out and cleaning his office. Deutsche Reichsbahn sues Holzer in New York state court under German law for these costs. It seems clear that in this case the public policy exception would apply. So what is the difference between Holzer and our hypothetical case? Why didn't the public policy exception apply in Holzer?