2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential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

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 Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Simon v. USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 743.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/743
 

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
2

 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 28 U.S.C. §1292(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, 341 F.3d 193 (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
 

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

holding.

3

“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.