63 A.2d 828, 834 (1949); and German Nat’l Bank v. Zimmer, 141 Ky. 401, 132 S.W. 1023 (1911). How can we not adhere to such a rule? Specifically, if we are to rely on the law of another state for the very existence of a cause of action and for the very substance of that cause of action, how can we reject what that law says as to what that substance is — contract or tort? Thus, once it is determined that the substantive law of the State of Oklahoma is to be applied in this case, I do not see how at any subsequent juncture in the analysis we can ignore what that law has to say as to whether the cause of action created by that law lies in contract or in tort. Statutes of limitations themselves may be procedural rules, see generally Etheredge v. Genie Indus., Inc., 632 So.2d 1324 (Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>), but the question of the nature of the claim
holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law holding texas law governs procedural matters holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim