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
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
3) Due process is a protection to the defendant.
How can it
be violated by the fact that
4) Isn’t the decision in Dick contrary to the view
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?