Questions on False Conflicts

1) Sometimes the term "false conflict" is used when the two states whose laws might conceivably apply have the same laws. But is it true that no conflicts analysis is necessary in such a case? Think of Missouri's and New York's statute of frauds in Marie v. Garrison...

2) More commonly the term false conflict is used to refer to a case where only one state is interested in applying its law. Is Babcock a false conflict case?

3) Was Dym v Gordon a true conflict case? If it was was it correct for the court to resolve the conflict against New York law?

4) How does the court in Tooker turn the case into a false conflict? How does it distinguish Dym?

5) If guest statutes are about preventing fraud, should any of the following be relevant to determining the applicable law - where the car is registered? where the insured is domiciled? where the insurer is incorporated, where the insurer has the most customers?

6) What about Susan Silk? Should New York law apply to her too?

7) Why is charitable immunity considered a loss allocating rule in Schultz?

8) Is domicile really relevant to a charitable immunity law? Isn't what suggests the application of New Jersey law in Schultz  the fact that the tort arose out of New Jersey charitable activities (whetever people's domiciles might be).

Is New York’s absence of charitable immunity a loss allocating rule whose applicability should be assessed on the basis of domicile? Or isn't it a conduct regulating rule? If it is the latter, isn't this a true conflict case?

10) The majority in Schultz says the following:

The three reasons most often urged in support of applying the law of the forum-locus in cases such as this are: (1) to protect medical creditors who provided services to injured parties in the locus State, (2) to prevent injured tort victims from becoming public wards in the locus State and (3) the deterrent effect application of locus law has on future tort-feasors in the locus State. The first two reasons share common weaknesses. First, in the abstract, neither reason necessarily requires application of the locus jurisdiction's law, but rather invariably mandates application of the law of the jurisdiction that would either allow recovery or allow the greater recovery. They are subject to criticism, therefore, as being biased in favor of recovery.

Is that right?