In Abendschein v. Farrell, the Supreme Court of Michigan declined to embrace the "heady stuff' of interest analysis and decided instead to retain lex loci delicti as the method of resolving choice-of-law problems in tort cases. While my own inclination is toward interest analysis, rather obviously the highest appellate court of any state has the right and the capacity to utilize any constitutionally permissible technique to resolve conflicts problems, and to hell with my personal preference. Still, the result achieved by the court in Abendschein has continued to trouble me. I think now I know why, and, in the process of figuring out why, I think I may have arrived at some conclusions which may be of assistance to courts working with the complexities of interest analysis and of value to those courts which have elected to retain lex loci delicti. First, the facts of Abendschein.
David E. Seidelson,
Interest Analysis: For Those Who Like It and Those Who Don't,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol11/iss3/2