with "the public policy of the forum,” and allowed the maintenance of the causes of action only after finding that Oregon statutes were "virtually identical” to Idaho’s. Id. at 1279-80. Thus, plaintiffs are mistaken in suggesting that Houston presents an instance in which the existence of a statutory cause of action precluded a court from conducting a choice-of-law analysis. 30 To be clear, plaintiffs did not assert a defamation claim nor complained in this appeal that their allegations should have been interpreted as if they had sought damages based on a claim of defamation. Nevertheless, their disparagement claims may — for these purposes — be viewed similarly due to their theoretical kinship. Cf. Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 133, 516 A.2d 220 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 31 We have appended to this opinion a graph
recognizing that the torts of product disparagement and defamation sometimes overlap recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e recognizing torts of negligent hiring supervision and retention recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law