Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Walters

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that failure to provide adequate proof of foreign law results in a presumption that the law is identical to that of Texas
• holding party waived application of maritime law to case ―by failing to object to evidence and jury questions regarding damages which are not recoverable under maritime law‖
• standing to sue under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code limited to parties as defined in statute
• standing to sue under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code limited to parties as defined in statute
• motions to apply Virginia law filed on eve of trial were untimely
• “[T[he failure to provide adequate proof relieves the court of [the] requirement [under 202 to take judicial notice] and results in a presumption that the law of the foreign jurisdiction is identical to the law of Texas.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).