conflict of law rules to be applied by the federal court in [a state] must conform to those prevailing in [that] state[’s] courts ..It is not-for the federal courts to thwart such local policies by enforcing an independent ‘general law’ of conflict of laws. Subject only to review by [the Supreme] Court, on any federal question that may .arise, [states are] free to determine whether a given matter is to be governed by the law of the forum or some other law.”) (internal citations omitted). Thus, while the resolution of Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims may require determining whether Mexican or American law should apply, a state court is perfectly capable of making such a determination. See id.; see also Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, even if a court were to
holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case