O'Connor v. O'Connor

240 Citing cases

  1. Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Ser

    265 Conn. 791 (Conn. 2003)   Cited 418 times
    Affirming O'Connor's holding that lex loci controls unless it has an arbitrary result, in which case the "substantial relationship" test of the Restatement Second of the Conflict of Laws controls

    Although neither party briefed the conflict of laws issue on appeal, both parties addressed the issue in motions filed with the trial court, and, thus, the record before us is sufficient to resolve this issue. In deciding conflict of laws issues, we are guided by the principles set forth in our previous decision in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986). In O'Connor, we recognized that "[t]his court has traditionally adhered to the doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury, or lex loci delicti.

  2. Maldonado v. Lannefranque

    1998 Ct. Sup. 9802 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding New Jersey law governed plaintiff's claim even though injury and tortious conduct occurred in Connecticut and following reasoning in O'Connor which “focuse[d] on the result of reconciling competing state policies with regard to which contacts are significant”

    See Williams, supra, 372-3. In O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986), the Supreme Court rejected previous adherence to the doctrine of lex loci delicti and instead adopted the "most significant relationship" test in accordance with the principles of the Restatement Second Conflict of Laws: [t]he rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and to the parties under the principles [in the Restatement] stated in § 6.

  3. Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.

    462 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Conn. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a third party who received allegedly defective products as gifts from a consumer was not within the class of persons that CUTPA was intended to protect

    While Connecticut "traditionally adhered to the doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury, orlex loci delicti . . . in certain circumstances in which the traditional doctrine does not apply, the better rule is the analysis contained in the Restatement (Second) of the Conflict of Laws." Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insur. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 370 (1994); see O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632 (1986). "Recently, courts applying Connecticut choice-of-law law have used the Restatement approach even where lex loci would lead to the same result."

  4. In re U.S. Office Products Co. Securities Litigat.

    251 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that a party could not reasonably rely on representations made after a contract is formed where those representations are contradicted by the language of the agreement

    When the interested states' laws relevant to the operative facts produce the same outcome, there is no real conflict between the jurisdictions. O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13, 25 n. 18 (1986). When no conflict exists for a certain issue, the court may decide that issue using the law that is common to all of the affected jurisdictions.

  5. In re U.S. Office Products Co. Securities Litigation

    251 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003)

    When the interested states' laws relevant to the operative facts produce the same outcome, there is no real conflict between the jurisdictions. O'Connor v. O'Connor, 519 A.2d 13, 25 n. 18 (Conn. 1986). When no conflict exists for a certain issue, the court may decide that issue using the law that is common to all of the affected jurisdictions.

  6. Pollack v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

    939 F. Supp. 151 (D. Conn. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    Connecticut has traditionally applied the doctrine of lex loci delicti, the place where the injury occurred. In O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 648, 519 A.2d 13 (1986), the Connecticut Supreme Court abandoned "categorical allegiance" to the application of the lex loci delicti doctrine in tort actions. The court noted that circumstances exist where the "strict application of the lex loci delicti rule frustrates the legitimate expectations of the parties and undermines an important policy of the state."

  7. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake

    594 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that Delaware employs the "most significant relationship test"

    Additionally, at least two other jurisdictions have also recognized that lex loci was an artificial product of the common law vested rights theory. See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 643, 519 A.2d 13, 18 (Conn. 1986); Gutierrez, 583 S.W.2d at 314-316. While we do not ignore our duty to ensure that our decisions are uniform and predictable, we also have a corresponding duty to recognize change and to participate in the growth of the law.

  8. Svege v. Mercedes Benz Credit Corp.

    No. 3:01CV1771 (JBA) (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2002)   Cited 8 times
    Finding under Connecticut choice of law rules, the court is to apply the most significant relationship test, which is the place with the most significant relationship to the occurred and the parties

    As a federal court sitting in diversity in Connecticut, the Court must apply the choice of law rules that would be applied by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941). In O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632 (1986), the Connecticut Supreme Court abandoned "categorical allegiance" to the doctrine of lex loci delicti in tort actions, noting that the doctrine had "lost its theoretical underpinnings." Id. at 648.

  9. Doe v. Knights of Columbus

    930 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Conn. 2013)   Cited 28 times
    Applying Texas law to a Connecticut organization accused, inter alia , of negligence in letting at least one member of that organization have access to and sexually abuse a minor in Texas

    . See also Glenwood Systems, LLC v. Med–Pro Ideal Solutions, Inc., 438 Fed.Appx. 27, 29 (2d Cir.2011); Almonte v. New York Medical College, 851 F.Supp. 34, 39 (D.Conn.1994) (citing O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 650, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws § 145)). To determine the forum with the most significant relationship in the context of a tort case, the court considers “(a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.” O'Connor, 201 Conn. at 652, 519 A.2d 13 (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Law § 145(2) and citing id., § 6).

  10. Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.

    46 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Conn. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    Choice of law determinations can differ with respect to different elements of the case. Two conflict of law "tests" are utilized in Connecticut courts: the doctrine of " lex loci delicti" under which "the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury," O'Connor v. O'Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 636, 519 A.2d 13, (1986), and "the principles of the Restatement Second [Conflict of Laws]," which the parties refer to as the "significant relationship test." Under Connecticut law, courts must "incorporate the guidelines of the Restatement as the governing principles for those cases in which application of the doctrine of lex loci would produce an arbitrary, irrational result." Id., at 650, 519 A.2d 13.