as has been done with Nebraska’s statute of repose. However, I leave this to the Nebraska Supreme Court to more definitively resolve in the event that they need to do so, and simply recognize that our opinion is only controlling in this case. Thus, I do not necessarily agree with the analysis made by the majority opinion on the substantive aspect of the statute of repose, but I assume that it is a substantive provision for purposes of this dissent. 2 . Courts frequently apply the law of the jurisdiction where an allegedly defective product was assembled or placed into the stream of commerce, or where the plaintiff is domiciled, rather than the law of the state where the accident or injury occurred. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc., 913 F.2d 242, 250 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Air Crash Disaster, 769 F.2d 115, 120
holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas holding texass substantive law should apply rather than the law of the state where the accident occurred because texas has a particularly strong interest when the defective product in question was manufactured and placed in the stream of commerce in texas