You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg Inc

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-3621

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; April 23, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case involving Wayne Berrier and Brenda Gregg, acting on behalf of their minor child Ashley Berrier, against Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc., an appeal was made from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case also involved Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc. as a third-party plaintiff against Susie Shoff and Melvin Shoff. The appeal was heard by Circuit Judges McKee, Ambro, and Fisher on January 8, 2007. On April 23, 2009, an order was issued to amend a prior opinion dated April 21, 2009, correcting the phrasing in a sentence on page 36 to accurately reflect Pennsylvania law's alignment with the Third Restatement. This amendment was signed by Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee. The corrected opinion is deemed precedential, serving as an authoritative reference for future cases, and is documented under Docket No. 05-3621. The proceedings and documents related to the case are available in the Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository, underscoring the case's significance in legal scholarship and practice.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Judicial Opinions

Application: The court amended a previous opinion by correcting a sentence to accurately reflect the relationship between Pennsylvania law and the Third Restatement.

Reasoning: The amendment involved a correction to a sentence on page 36, altering the phrasing regarding the summation of Pennsylvania law and its relation to the Third Restatement.

Precedential Value of Judicial Decisions

Application: The court's decision is classified as precedential, indicating its authority and potential influence on future cases.

Reasoning: The decision is classified as precedential and is documented under Docket No. 05-3621.