Article by Earl M. Maltz
Most conflicts of law scholars were undoubtedly disappointed by the majority opinion in Baker v. General Motors Corp. These scholars are almost uniformly scornful of the First Restatement of Conflicts; the Baker Court's analysis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, was strikingly similar to the structure of the First Restatement. This Article examines these similarities and, challenging conventional wisdom, argues that the First Restatement in fact describes an entirely plausible approach to choice of law problems.
About the Author
Earl M. Maltz. Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law.
Citation
73 Tul. L. Rev. 305 (1998)