How Can Detroiter Enforce Divorce Decree And Defendent Lives In Kentucky And Will Not Cooperate?
III. THE PUBLIC POLICY RATIONALES AND A CRITIQUE Three public policy rationales underlie the domicile rule and its choice-of-law corollary. For centuries, states relied upon two of them–state sovereignty and the convenience of the parties; the third–ease of judicial administration–is more contemporary. As will be seen, none of the public policy rationales lends any genuine support to the domicile rule or its choice-of-law corollary today. A. State Sovereignty Rationale Perhaps the most enduring argument in favor of the domicile rule and its corollary is each state’s concern for its sovereignty. In a classic statement of the state sovereignty rationale, the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Ditson v. Ditson(102) declared: [E]very nation and state has an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory, so it has exclusively the right to determine the domestic and social condition of the persons domiciled within that territory . . . . . . . . . . [A] state cannot be deprive
