Ashland Chemical Co. v. Provence

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “California is the only interested state” even though “Kentucky is the plaintiff’s domicile, the place of contracting, and the place of payment” because “none of these contacts gives Kentucky an interest in having its statute of limitations applied”
• noting that “[s]tatutes of limitation are designed to protect the enacting state’s residents and courts from the burdens associated with the prosecution of stale cases”
• noting that this was “the very paradigm of the false conflict”
• identifying the parties’ contacts with both California and Kentucky and determining that “none of these contacts gives Kentucky an interest in having its statute of limitations applied”
• “Statutes of 10 limitations are designed to protect the enacting state’s residents and courts from the burdens 11 associated with the prosecution of stale cases in which memories have faded and evidence has been 12 lost.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).