, however, that they [Muslims] will have to accept that in England
Islam can only be followed as a religious faith and not pursued as an all-embracing way
of life' (Poulter 1998 at p. 236).
8See Menski 1993 at p. 239; Menski 1997 at p. 65-66; and Menski 1993 at p. 247,
where he points out the persistent
Scott & Kraus, Contract Law and Theory (3rd ed), 424 (LexisNexis 2002); See also
Calamari & Perillo, supra note 10, at p. 329.
when committing a fraud, the deceiving party is maliciously motivated. They
also point out that whether the fraud committed is to benefit the deceiving
party or a third party
necessary to quote a
statement by President Bush about overburdening courts with “‘illfounded or
politically motivated suits, which have nothing to do with the United States.’”118
5 The Habeas Corpus Statute
The habeas corpus statute confers on federal district courts, “within their re-
limitations for medical mal-
practice claims and settled on a two-year statute of limitations.”).
117 Id. at 506.
118 Id. at 503.
119 Id. at 504 (internal quotations omitted).
682 Choice of L aw in the A merica n Courts in 2007
of the territory and should not expect to subject persons living there to a fi
); Lupien v. Lupien, 68 A.D.3d 1807, 891N.Y.S.2d 785, (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
But see Cantu v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 579 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.2009) (enforcing a choice-
of-law clause in alife insurance contract).
157 2009 WL 2220065 (Ohio Ct. App. July 23, 2009).
158 Id. at ¶ 29 (internal quotes omitted
precedent, the Third Circuit rejected the argument, concluding
that foreign citizens “are only entitled, at best, to the lesser deference afforded a U.S. citi-
zen living abroad who sues in a U.S. forum.” Id. at 875 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The court reasoned that the focus of FNC analysis is
to be “ambulatory in nature,” and was to be governed by “the law of the
state where they’re living at the time they need it.”274 That time, the trial court
reasoned, would be the end of the marriage, not the beginning. The Tennessee
Court of Appeals rejected the argument, noting that a prenuptial
into non-compliance with international obligations like
those imposed by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS),41 or otherwise “pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others.”42
35 Id. at 2178.
36 See id. at 2179. In addition to Justices Stevens and Souter who
with arranging and paying in the United States for the mur-
der of a Mexican competitor in Mexico, in order to eliminate competition in
his business of producing false Social Security cards, driver’s licenses, green
cards, and other documents for illegal aliens living in the United States. The
.S. 739, 746 (1987)).
61 Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
62 Hernandez, 757 F.3d at 269.
63 Id. at 270.
1279T w ent y-eighth A nnual Surv ey
noting that the “national interest in self-protection,” which motivated the
court’s decision to restrain the application of the