When there is more than one state, or more than one jurisdiction (state court, federal court) with a significant relationship to the parties and circumstances involved in a lawsuit or dispute, the question may arise as to which state or jurisdiction’s laws will govern the lawsuit or dispute. The body of law that determines what law governs a dispute is called conflict of laws and consists of legal principles courts use to determine which state or jurisdiction’s law applies—unless the parties to a dispute have agreed (usually in a contract) on what law will apply.

In Kansas, as in other states, the issue of which jurisdiction's laws apply to a lawsuit or dispute is governed by the principles of conflict of laws, also known as choice of law rules. These rules are designed to resolve questions of which state or jurisdiction's substantive law should be applied when there are competing jurisdictions connected to the parties or the circumstances of the case. Kansas courts will consider various factors, such as the place where the injury occurred, the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties, and the location where the relationship between the parties is centered. Kansas follows the 'most significant relationship' test, which is outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, to determine which state's law should apply. This test takes into account the connections or contacts the parties and the transaction have with Kansas or other jurisdictions. If the parties have a valid choice of law agreement, Kansas courts will generally honor such agreements unless the chosen law is contrary to a fundamental policy of Kansas or there is no substantial relationship to the state chosen by the parties.