Jepson v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the third factor was insignificant “because the law of either state could be applied without difficulty”
• finding that “simplification of the judicial task is not a significant factor in this case because the law of either state could be applied without difficulty”
• finding that maintenance of interstate order weighs in favor of applying foreign law over Minnesota law because the foreign state had “the authority to regulate the terms of insurance” in that state
• refusing to find either stacking or anti-stacking was better law in deciding to apply North Dakota law
• indicating second step in analysis is whether the law of both states can be constitutionally applied
• stating that Minnesota places great value in compensating tort victims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).