Questions on Home Ins. Co. v. Dick

1) Why was this case examined under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

2) Does Dick constitutionalize the place of contracting (or place of performance) rule? How would the court have treated the case if the contract had been the same in other respects (e.g. made in Mexico with performance in Mexico) but had been made between two Texans?

3) Due process is a protection to the defendant. How can it be violated by the fact that Texas does not have an interest in its law applying?

4) Isn’t the decision in Dick contrary to the view that statutes of limitations are a matter of forum law?

5) What was the source of personal jurisdiction over the Mexican defendant?

6) The court rejects the idea that Texas can refuse to apply Mexican law on public policy grounds with the following words: "But the Mexican corporation never was in Texas; and neither it nor the garnishees invoked the aid of the Texas courts or the Texas laws. The Mexican corporation was not before the court. The garnishees were brought in by compulsory process. Neither has asked favors. They ask only to be let alone." What does this mean? Is Dick like Holzer?