Choice of Law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed

By: Richard Walinski

Ohio is among the sizeable minority of states that refer to the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws for at least some of their choice-of-law rules. Ohio has gone further than other states, however, in the extent to which it accredits the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. The Ohio Supreme Court some time ago announced and, later, separately reaffirmed that the Restatement (Second) applies “in its entirety” to all conflict-of-law questions in civil cases.

Despite the supreme court’s expressed adoption of the full Restatement, lawyers and judges in Ohio have consistently overlooked two steps in the Restatement (Second)’s choice-of-law methodology. They are not alone. Lawyers and judges in other states routinely miss the same steps.

The article focuses on those missed steps. Mr. Walinski contends that the oversight is important because, by performing less than the complete analysis described in the Restatement, courts resolve conflict-of-law questions in ways that directly encourage forum-shopping. That consequence of is particular importance in Ohio, which has recognized—both legislatively and judicially—a firm policy discouraging that practice.

The article is published as Choice of law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed, 51 Akron Law Review 387 (2017), http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss2/6

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this web site or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Thacker Robinson Zinz LPA and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Back to posts
Print article

Choice of Law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed

By: Richard Walinski

Ohio is among the sizeable minority of states that refer to the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws for at least some of their choice-of-law rules. Ohio has gone further than other states, however, in the extent to which it accredits the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. The Ohio Supreme Court some time ago announced and, later, separately reaffirmed that the Restatement (Second) applies “in its entirety” to all conflict-of-law questions in civil cases.

Despite the supreme court’s expressed adoption of the full Restatement, lawyers and judges in Ohio have consistently overlooked two steps in the Restatement (Second)’s choice-of-law methodology. They are not alone. Lawyers and judges in other states routinely miss the same steps.

The article focuses on those missed steps. Mr. Walinski contends that the oversight is important because, by performing less than the complete analysis described in the Restatement, courts resolve conflict-of-law questions in ways that directly encourage forum-shopping. That consequence of is particular importance in Ohio, which has recognized—both legislatively and judicially—a firm policy discouraging that practice.

The article is published as Choice of law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed, 51 Akron Law Review 387 (2017), http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss2/6

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this web site or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Thacker Robinson Zinz LPA and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Back to posts
Print article

Choice of Law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed

By: Richard Walinski

Ohio is among the sizeable minority of states that refer to the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws for at least some of their choice-of-law rules. Ohio has gone further than other states, however, in the extent to which it accredits the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. The Ohio Supreme Court some time ago announced and, later, separately reaffirmed that the Restatement (Second) applies “in its entirety” to all conflict-of-law questions in civil cases.

Despite the supreme court’s expressed adoption of the full Restatement, lawyers and judges in Ohio have consistently overlooked two steps in the Restatement (Second)’s choice-of-law methodology. They are not alone. Lawyers and judges in other states routinely miss the same steps.

The article focuses on those missed steps. Mr. Walinski contends that the oversight is important because, by performing less than the complete analysis described in the Restatement, courts resolve conflict-of-law questions in ways that directly encourage forum-shopping. That consequence of is particular importance in Ohio, which has recognized—both legislatively and judicially—a firm policy discouraging that practice.

The article is published as Choice of law in Ohio: Two Steps Routinely Missed, 51 Akron Law Review 387 (2017), http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss2/6

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this web site or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Thacker Robinson Zinz LPA and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Back to posts
Print article

© 2018 Thacker Robinson Zinz Co., LPA. All Rights Reserved.