of Conflict of Laws § 146 (1971), the law of the state where the accident occurred controls the right to recover and the amount of the recovery. Crossley, supra. We reaffirm the holding in Crossley that under the Restatement, supra, § 146, Colorado’s no-fault law governed the threshold issue of the tort-feasor’s liability. As this court noted, “in virtually all instances where the conduct and the injury occur in the same state, that state has the dominant interest in regulating that conduct and in determining whether it is tortious in character, and whether the interest affected is entitled to legal protection.” Crossley, 198 Neb. at 30, 251 N.W.2d at 386, citing Restatement, supra, § 146, comment d. See, also, Malena v. Marriott International, 264 Neb. 759, 651 N.W.2d 850 (2002) (<HOLDING>). But this court’s reliance on § 146 in
holding that the title of the statute engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places and the requirement that the defendant travel in foreign commerce evinced congressional intent to apply the statute extraterritorially holding that the iowa tort claims act allows claims for torts committed in foreign countries recognizing foreign states dominant interests in limiting less serious tort claims in order to protect claimants with more serious damages and to maintain low insurance premiums for its residents when conduct and injury occurred in foreign state holding that a purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce