Comments on: Legislators Attempt to Bar Foreign Law from Arizona Courts http://www.95years.com/2010/02/18/legislators-attempt-to-bar-foreign-and-religious-law-from-arizona-courts/ A blog about technology, media, culture and the law. Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:00:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Richard http://www.95years.com/2010/02/18/legislators-attempt-to-bar-foreign-and-religious-law-from-arizona-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Richard Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:32:05 +0000 http://www.95years.com/?p=483#comment-40 Hi Rob, Good points. I agree that the inability to consider foreign law under Arizona state law would create Erie issues. As for the marriage issue, one of the Volokh commenters suggested that this could mean that his marriage, conducted in Indonesia, where religious law is incorporated into marriage law, would be invalid in Arizona. Hi Rob,

Good points. I agree that the inability to consider foreign law under Arizona state law would create Erie issues. As for the marriage issue, one of the Volokh commenters suggested that this could mean that his marriage, conducted in Indonesia, where religious law is incorporated into marriage law, would be invalid in Arizona.

]]> By: Rob http://www.95years.com/2010/02/18/legislators-attempt-to-bar-foreign-and-religious-law-from-arizona-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Rob Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:13:40 +0000 http://www.95years.com/?p=483#comment-39 Maybe I'm way off-base here and too fresh out of Civ Pro and used to looking for Erie issues, but couldn't what may or may not be used as persuasive authority be construed in favor of the federal rules for a court sitting in diversity jurisdiction. I mean if one of the major aims of recent Erie Doctrine cases is to discourage forum shopping, I'd think that it'd be desirable to have federal judges' ability to be persuaded by foreign law exist no matter what state's substantive law is being applied. Maybe in some kind of human rights thing where there is some kind of sea change happening worldwide and a defendant would want to get into court in Arizona to avoid judges' contemplation of foreign law? Also, could this be used to not have to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in foreign countries that do recognize them? Maybe I’m way off-base here and too fresh out of Civ Pro and used to looking for Erie issues, but couldn’t what may or may not be used as persuasive authority be construed in favor of the federal rules for a court sitting in diversity jurisdiction. I mean if one of the major aims of recent Erie Doctrine cases is to discourage forum shopping, I’d think that it’d be desirable to have federal judges’ ability to be persuaded by foreign law exist no matter what state’s substantive law is being applied. Maybe in some kind of human rights thing where there is some kind of sea change happening worldwide and a defendant would want to get into court in Arizona to avoid judges’ contemplation of foreign law?

Also, could this be used to not have to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in foreign countries that do recognize them?

]]>