Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “most significant relationship” test of section 6 of Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws applies in Texas in most choice-of-law cases
• holding that “general, categorical release clauses” are not impermissible but must be “narrowly construe[d]”
• holding that “general, categorical release clauses” are not impermissible but must be “narrowly construe[d]”
• stating that, before undertaking a choice-of-law analysis, the Court “must first determine whether there is a difference between the rules of Texas and New Mexico on this issue”
• noting that motion to take judicial notice of New Mexico law was filed one week before trial
• stating that, before undertaking choice of law analysis, the court must first determine whether there is a difference between the relevant laws

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1982-04-22· cited 9×