DeLoach v. Alfred
Arizona Supreme Court
960 P.2d 628 (1998)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
On June 19, 1994, Kevin Hamblin (plaintiff) was a passenger in a car operated by Kevin DeLoach (defendant) when their car accidentally collided with a car driven by William Moore in the State of Tennessee. Exactly two years later, on June 19, 1996, Hamblin filed a tort action in Arizona state court against Moore and his wife, both Tennessee residents, and DeLoach and his wife, both Arizona residents. The Moores did not appear in the action, and the Arizona court apparently lacked personal jurisdiction over them. DeLoach filed a motion for summary judgment based on Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations for tort actions. In opposition, Hamblin argued for application of Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations because Arizona applied its own law to procedural matters. The trial court applied Arizona law and denied DeLoach’s motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed. Following the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the court concluded that Tennessee had a more significant interest in the case and Tennessee law should apply. The Supreme Court granted DeLoach’s petition for review on the choice-of-law issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
