Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶84
5 The result might be the same under choice of law rules like the government-interest test or the test in the Restatement (Second) of Confict of Laws § 145 (1969). See, e. g., M. M. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 708 F. Supp. 3d 22, 47–48 (DC 2023); Sadiqyar v. Mission Essential, LLC, 2020 WL 5210850, *4, n. 3 (SD Ohio, Sept. 1, 2020) (“California choice of law rules, as stated in the `governmental interests test,' might permit the application of Afghan law”).Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.