test to the undisputed facts is an application of the law that is subject to nondeferential review or an exercise of factfinding subject to deference is an open question. Compare Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1170, 1173-83 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying de novo review to trial court’s summary judgment based on balancing of factors under fair use defense to copyright infringement) and Gregory v. Beazer East, 892 N.E.2d 563, 578 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (explaining that trial court’s choice-of-law determination is reviewed de novo because “the task of evaluating and balancing the choice-of-law factors ... is a matter of law rather than ... of fact”), with Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. Creekstone Builders, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 473, 479, 2015 WL 6488276, at *4 (Tex. App. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Because we reach the same conclusion as the
holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law holding that when trial court has considered all relevant factors in its forum non conveniens analysis the courts ruling deserves substantial deference and appellate court should not conduct de novo review by reweighing each of the factors quotation marks omitted holding courts reweighing of evidence improper as de novo review of record holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted