Filed: Apr. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 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2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-23-2009 Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 05-3621 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Berrier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
Summary: 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2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-23-2009 Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 05-3621 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Berrier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 ..
More
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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential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
v.
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
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
v.
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
