1. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Klaxon rule in Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v.

Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 96S.Ct.167, 46 L.Ed.2d 3 (1975), underscoring that the diversity court

“is not free to engraft onto * * * state [conflicts] rules exceptions or modifications which * * *

have not commended themselves to the State in which the federal court sits.” Id. at 4, 96 S.Ct. at 168, 46 L.Ed.2d at 5. Is the Klaxon rule constitutionally compelled? Is it required by the Rules of Decision Act?