finding that a conflict existed where “Wisconsin has a powerful interest in protecting its residents from fraud and misrepresentation, while the District of Columbia has an equally strong interest in ensuring that its corporate citizens refrain from fraudulent activities”
How later courts described this case
- finding that a conflict existed where “Wisconsin has a powerful interest in protecting its residents from fraud and misrepresentation, while the District of Columbia has an equally strong interest in ensuring that its corporate citizens refrain from fraudulent activities”
- stating that there was a “discounted value of the place of injury in cases ... involving claims of misrepresentation” and quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 cmt. f.
- stating that there was a "discounted value of the place of injury in cases ... involving claims of misrepresentation"
- providing that if the court “cannot 25 determine from the pleadings which jurisdiction has a greater interest in the controversy,” the court “must apply the law of the forum state”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RUIZ, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I fully join Judge Ferren’s opinion for the court holding that, because of the presumptions operative at this early juncture in the litigation, an analysis of the underlying claims’ ties to the District of Columbia favor application of the law of the forum. Our analysis at this point has not required an in-depth review of the corresponding provisions of relevant D.C. and Wisconsin law for the protection of consumer debtors, because we have proceeded from the trial court’s determination — not challenged by the parties — that both states have “essentially equal interests in protection of consumers.” See ante at 176. Therefore we have not had occasion to consider whether, if Wisconsin’s interest in consumer protection would be furthered by application of D.C. law in this instance, this case presents a “false conflict” of laws. See Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Stutsman, 491 A.2d 502, 509-11 (D.C.1985).