Wayne Berrier v. SIMPLICITY MANUFACTURING, INC., Third-Party

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

-- 1 of 4 --

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

-- 2 of 4 --

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

-- 3 of 4 --

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

-- 4 of 4 --