we held that Alaska law governs the question of interspousal tort immunity, even though the auto accident that inspired the tort suit occurred in Canada. See id. at 700-01. There, we treated the interspousal immunity question independently of the underlying tort question, and focused on the spousal relationship between the parties to the lawsuit. See id. But to apply the Armstrong approach here only begs the question of whether successor liability should be treated as wholly independent. Armstrong does not control. 7 . See Tex. Bus 7) (defining dépegage as [a) court's application of different state laws to different issues in a legal dispute; choice of law on an issue-by-issue basis"); see also Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 266 .R.L., 648 So.2d 565, 570 (Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>). See also David W. Pollak, Successor Liability
holding that  successor liability is not a tort it is an equitable tool used to transfer liability from a predecessor to a successor  quotation omitted holding that state law determines successor liability under cercla holding that conflict rule for tort cases should apply to corporate successor liability issue recognizing cercla successor liability recognizing conflict