Viewing page 88 of 91

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

17

"The general federal rule is that the law of a foreign country is a fact which must be proved.... One who submits to the court foreign law which he claims is applicable should do more than merely allege conclusions or 'short excerpts' from the allegedly pertinent statute. He should set out the substance of the alleged foreign law to such an extent that the court may judge whether it has the effect he ascribes to it." See also Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies (1941, ED Pa) 1 FRD. 626.

As to possible judicial notice, and proof by experts, as to foreign law, see opinion by Judge Cashin in Noel v. Linea Aeropostal Venezolana (1958, SDNY) 5 CCH Avi 18,176, at 18,177.

The case to Nippon Hodo Company, Ltd. v. United States (285 F 2d 766-Ct. Cl. 1961) appears to be a leading case on the subject of proof of foreign law in U.S. litigation. In this case, a Japanese corporation brought suit in a contract appeal against the United States Government, and their position as plaintiff depended on proof of Japanese law. Here, the plaintiff produced a deposition from a Japanese attorney, an experienced member of the Tokyo Bar Association. ...This statement was affirmed by the Director of Litigation of the Japanese Ministry of Justice....The plaintiff failed to submit translations of any Japanese cases, but the court said: "Little weight can be given to this omission when it is considered that we are dealing here not only with a different legal system, but with a different culture as well." The court accepted this manner of proving Japanese law but might well adopt a different rule in proving the law of some other nation.

In July of 1966, revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure included a specific reference to the determination of foreign law. New federal Rule 44.1 requires either notice in the pleadings or "other reasonable written notice" by a