Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-21-2004

Simon v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-2945

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

Recommended Citation "Simon v. USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 743. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/743

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 02-2945

LOUIS SIMON; HOWARD ASHER; HENRY F. MILLER; SUZANNE PETERSON, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF B. KENIN HART, DECEASED*,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*(Amended in accordance with Clerk's Order dated 8/27/02)

(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-05671)

Nos. 02-3996, 02-3997

MARY SCHALLIOL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS SCHALLIOL, DECEASED

v.

JOHN FARE, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN FARE; HART DELAWARE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mary Schalliol,

Appellant in 02-3996

John Fare, Jr.,

Appellant in 02-3997

(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00224)

_______________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz

________________________________________________

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO, and BECKER, Circuit Judges ____________________________________________

ORDER _____________________________________________

The interlocutory appeal came before us on a certification by the District Court

pursuant to

(b), which presented us with the question whether Indiana’s

or Pennsylvania’s choice-of-law rules govern a suit against the United States by the

estates of passengers killed in the crash of a small private aircraft.

On August 20, 2003, we filed an opinion,

(3d Cir. 2003),

accompanied by a certification of the following questions to the Indiana Supreme Court:

(1) whether a true conflict exists between Indiana’s and D.C.’s choice-of-law rules; and

(2) if there is a true conflict and Indiana’s choice-of-law rules therefore control per our

2 “last significant act” test, how to resolve a split among the Hubbard factors in choosing a

jurisdiction’s substantive law when one factor points toward Indiana, another toward

Pennsylvania, and the third is indeterminate, and what substantive law Indiana would

choose under these facts.

On March 31, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court filed an opinion, No. 94S00-0308-

CQ-377, responding to the certified questions.1

The questions certified to us by the District Court now having been answered, the

case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward R. Becker Circuit Judge

DATED: April 21, 2004 CH/cc: Michael S. Olin, Esq. Joel S. Perwin, Esq. Arthur G. Raynes, Esq. Stephen E. Raynes, Esq. Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. Terence M. Healy, Esq. Rodney Patton, Esq. Donald B. Kehoe, Esq. Daniel S. Weinstock, Esq. Harry A. Wilson Jr., Esq. Joseph M. Lamonaca, Esq. J. Arthur Mozley, Esq.

1 We note that the District Court accurately predicted the Indiana Supreme Court’s holding.

3