Lex Fori Approach, the State

¶ … lex fori approach, the state law of Ohio would govern, but the court would be free to introduce aspects of laws from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York, or Delaware if doing so would be in the interests of justice. Under the lex loci contractus approach, the court would have two choices of state law. First, it could choose Illinois, because the contract was negotiated in Chicago. Second, it could choose New York because the contract was signed in New York. Which states laws the court would actually apply would come down to the court's determination of where the parties actually entered into the contract. If one party could establish offer and acceptance in Illinois, then Illinois law would apply. Otherwise, New York law would apply. Under the lex loci solutionis approach, Michigan law would apply because the subject of the parties' contract was a building in Michigan, meaning that Michigan was most closely connected to the substance of the contract.

Attorney Duffus is incorrect. A state can acquire personal jurisdiction over a party if that party engages in behavior that make it reasonably likely that he is aware he is availing himself of the benefits of that state. By indicating to Klump that he could file a lawsuit in Illinois, Duffus engaged in the practice of law in Illinois. Therefore, even if he never personally appeared within the state, he did business within the state and was subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois for any causes arising from that representation.

6. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, a court will generally adhere to its own previous rulings and will also follow the rulings of higher courts. However, the doctrine of stare decisis generally refers to a court's interpretation and application of laws or other legal rules. A finding that the "Smithville crossing is extremely hazardous" is a finding of fact. Anytime that a court is discussing a finding of fact, it cannot simply rely on stare decisis, but must examine whether the factual situation has remained the same since announcing the first rule. For example, the Smithville crossing could be extremely hazardous in rainy May weather, but not hazardous in dry December weather. In addition, the Regional Transit Authority may have placed appropriate warnings or safety devices, which would have changed the nature of the crossing. Therefore, the court may not accept the conclusion announced in the Walters case. However, if the factual conditions did not change between the two accidents, the court should recognize its own precedent and follow the Walters decision.