Page:Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.pdf/3

Rh the intangible property at the plaintiff’s residence, such that the injury is also located there. Smagin defends a contextual approach that considers all case-specific facts bearing on where the injury arises. Pp. 7–8.

(e) Petitioners argue that a contextual approach is inconsistent with certain common-law principles governing “the situs” of injuries to intangible property. Specifically, petitioners point to the Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws—under which fraud is typically deemed felt