on choice of law. This court is aware of at least one case where a court implicitly found similar language determinative of the choice of law issue. In In re Wallace’s Bookstores, Inc., 317 B.R. 709, 713 (Bankr.E.D.Ky. May 25, 2004), the court, albeit without mentioning § 6, held that Kentucky's comparative fault statute, which provided for allocation of "fault” between all tortfeasors, applied "by its own terms, '[i]n all tort actions’,” and the court did not undertake any further choice of law analysis. There are many more cases, however, where the courts found a full conflicts analysis necessary notwithstanding a statute’s inclusion of "in any civil action'’-type language. See, e.g., Boyd Rosene and Assocs., Inc. v. Kansas Mun. Gas Agency, 174 F.3d 1115, 1117-1118 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Ryan v. Ford Motor Co., 334 F.Supp. 674, 675
holding that district court erred in awarding attorneys fees in civil rights action where plaintiff only recovered 1 in nominal damages holding that district court should have applied kansas law regarding attorneys fees despite oklahoma statute which recited in any civil action to recover holding that attorneys fees are necessaries in a civil suit to recover money or property for the minor holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees