Questions on the Public Policy Exception
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
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