Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-23-2009

Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-3621

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1430. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1430

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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-3621

WAYNE BERRIER; BRENDA GREGG, in their own right and as parents and natural guardians of Ashley Berrier, a minor,

Appellants

v.

SIMPLICITY MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff

SUSIE SHOFF; MELVIN SHOFF,

Third-Party Defendants

Appeal from the United States District Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 04-cv-00097) District Judge: Hon. Legrome D. Davis

Argued: January 8, 2007

Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and FISHER Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion filed in this case on April 21, 2009, be amended as follows:

On page 36, delete the sentence reading: “He stated: ‘I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, that the . . . summation of Pennsylvania law demonstrates a compelling need for consideration of reasoned alternatives, such as are reflected in the position the Third Restatement.’ 841 A.2d at 1018 (upper case in original, italics added).” Replace it with: “He stated: ‘I believe, however, that the . . . summation of Pennsylvania law demonstrates a compelling need for consideration of reasoned alternatives, such as are reflected in the position of the Third Restatement.’ 841 A.2d at 1018 (italics added).”

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Theodore A. McKee CIRCUIT JUDGE

Dated: 23 April 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

WAYNE BERRIER; BRENDA GREGG, in their own right and as parents and natural guardians of Ashley Berrier, a minor,

Appeal from the United States District Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 04-cv-00097) District Judge: Hon. Legrome D. Davis

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion filed in this case on April 21, 2009, be amended as follows:

On page 36, delete the sentence reading: “He stated: ‘I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, that the . . . summation of Pennsylvania law demonstrates a compelling need for consideration of reasoned alternatives, such as are reflected in the position the Third Restatement.’ 841 A.2d at 1018 (upper case in original, italics added).” Replace it with: “He stated: ‘I believe, however, that the . . . summation of Pennsylvania law demonstrates a compelling need for consideration of reasoned alternatives, such as are reflected in the position of the Third Restatement.’ 841 A.2d at 1018 (italics added).”

Dated: 23 April 2009