choice-of-law analysis in Utah

2012Huntsman emphasizes that it is a successor in interest to the original party that contracted with One Beacon for insurance coverage, El Paso Products, a Texas corporation. 12 Huntsman thus argues that "at the time of contracting," the original contracting "parties could not have anticipated that insurance payments for claims arising at a Texas facility, [then] owned by a Texas corporation, ... might be sent to Utah some 40 years later." As a result, argues Huntsman, the actual place of performance and "the current residence of the parties does not add much meaningful consideration to the choic

2012Huntsman emphasizes that it is a successor in interest to the original party that contracted with One Beacon for insurance coverage, El Paso Products, a Texas corporation.12 Huntsman thus argues that “at the time of contracting,” the original contracting “parties could not have anticipated that insurance payments for claims arising at a Texas facility, [then] owned by a Texas corporation, . . . might be sent to Utah some 40 years later.” As a result, argues Huntsman, the actual place of performance and “the current residence of the parties does not add much meaningful consideration to the choi

2005See In re Adoption of Y.R.W., 320 Or. 620 , 892 P.2d 991, 998 (1995).

2005See In re Adoption of Y.R.W., 320 Or. 620 , 892 P.2d 991, 998 (1995).

2005See In re Adoption of Y.R.W., 320 Or. 620 , 892 P.2d 991, 998 (1995).

2005See In re Adoption of Y.R.W., 320 Or. 620 , 892 P.2d 991, 998 (1995).

2024“In brief, claim preclusion applies to all claims growing out of the same facts that could have been brought, but issue preclusion applies only to those issues that were actually litigated and decided.” Watkins v. Resorts Int’l Hotel & Casino, Inc., 591 A.2d 592, 604 (1991).

2012See id. § 188 cmt. e; see also id. § 6(2)(c)‐(d) (listing other factors relevant to a choice of law analysis, such as “the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue” as well as “the protection of justified expectations”).

2001See Morris v. Sykes, 624 P.2d 681 , 684 & n. 3 (Utah 1981) (applying only the substantive law of a foreign state pursuant to a choice of law analysis).

2001See Morris v. Sykes, 624 P.2d 681 , 684 & n. 3 (Utah 1981) (applying only the substantive law of a foreign state pursuant to a choice of law analysis).

2001As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, "[Vjenue in civil actions brought against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions, absent waiver or exception, properly lies in the county where the state, agency, or subdivision, maintains its principal headquarters." Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So.2d 362, 363-64 (Fla.1977); see also Florida Pub.