The primary focus of interest analysis, as developed by Brainerd Currie, was on identifying false and true conflicts. Currie also recognized, however, that there could be a case in which none of the involved states had an interest in applying its law on the issue as to which their laws differed. This he called the unprovided for case, which, while "comparatively rare," did occur, and in Currie's view, should be resolved with reference to other policies that were common to the involved states. Currie did not fully develop the rationale for resolving the unprovided for case until he came to consider the effect of the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses upon a court's freedom to choose the applicable law. His concern there in the context of the unprovided for case was whether the forum, in order to avoid unreasonable discrimination, was required to apply its own law in favor of a non-resident party. But it must be admitted that Currie did not fully develop the rationale for resolving the unprovided for case.
Sedler, Robert Allen
"Interstate Accidents and the Unprovided For Case: Reflections on Neumeier v. Kuehner,"
Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 1
, Article 10.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol1/iss1/10