# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ferens v. John Deere Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0464%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1990 - **Citation:** 494 U.S. 516 ## Text TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Sramuey V. Osraow, Eso. Reween B. Tockes, Il, Be * Whi A. Peweon, Eso. TUCKER ARENSSERG, PC 1200 Pittsburgh Nationa! Bidg Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | 522) (412) 366-1212 Counsel for Petitioners Albert J Ferens and Margaret L. Ferens, his wile Counsel of Record for Petitioners QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a district cout to which a case has been transferred pursuant to 28 US §1404(a) 1s obligated to apply the state law that would have been apphed if there had been no transfer where the transfer is from 4 court having proper venue and jursdiction and the transfer has occurred as the result of an unopposed motion by the planufl lL The Decision Of The Third Circuit Holding That The Transferee District Court Is Not Obdligated To Apply The Law Of The Transferor State When The Planuff is The Mowing Party Is In Confict With Thess Court's Reasonmg In Van Dusen + Barrack tL The Decsmon Of The Third Circuit Holding That The Transferee District Court Is Not Odligated To Apply The Law Of The Transferor State When The Plannff Is The Mowing Party Is In Conflict With The Rea- somng In Decrmoas From Other Curcust weww 4 1s APPENDICES: Appendix A—Opimon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dated the United States dated June 27, 1988 ........ A-1? Appendix C—Opimon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dated Appendix E—Judgment of the United States TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Alexander v. Richardson-Merrell. Inc.. $41 F. Supp. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) .............. 17 Bott v. American Hydrocarbon Corp., 441 F.2d 896 CE EE ee ae 18 Carson v. U-Haul Co., 434 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1970)... 18 Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 8 Ee ee 11, 13, 16 Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-S8S, STD 2.0) bn ccdencendasseséonesees il Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 719 F.2d 785 St iivageeehsoneeseeeeeeeseooseos 8 Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 713 F.2d 100 ERS a 4 Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 694 F.2d 104 Lan nccann 641b060000606600060008 12 Davis v. Costa—Gavras, $80 F. Supp. 1082 ¢ ae yer 18 Ellis v. Great Southwestern Corp., 646 F.2d 1099 CG Ends eduestscseoebbsoeosoosers Sto Stankes VY Ontree Willie A Peeve Petbergh Pa Fave Murphree james Wilke Ro Rereett late Mew tor Gary 1 Sieh, Sheri Reged &@ Mabie Pee a OPTNION COMTLL. Chet fede ~ mary jediguerst @ the steme & & 7 4 i i —- ewe ee ee ee ee ee ee as i ee ee ne re ee ed ae or a er i se ge eater oe me en ee me oe eater Ge wonder ¢ LPC 8 BR we ened 6 vere owners ee a ee ee te an oad ee me ee ee ee ee a ee ee ed a oe Ponte Co OOF Be rn = oO m= ae —_— = & en meted eed 8 pede ommen pertems Ge wor de ee i ee te ee ee ee er i i ere oe Rowton emell Mew Lewin Meera fee MI hehe Gh a At he TED te Ge a ee ee ee i en ee uiie@odutie m Goenstebee eo ery oe ee es toed ee ee we 6 Nel ee ep ytte tite prow veenme of the prere thee ee ee Be on eee Net to beang + breach of warrenty action for the bees ato end Aerommntes Corp « 4] Entren Comp. oF Aw tthe tremeter Plasntily ctreseecd the teeseheiet thew tort chasms eth thew pewdimg (( ( chasms he haere arcs tae eretant caw them: what prom whee Mowever the crus af the protiem mm the fromm Meseseeepps ¢ amemmaione: herr oe eng ctetute ii ij it it | i, | li he ‘i Ht THE tet {itt Hig Me He HH. HE HE a tin at a Hi pathy al lhe Hit in aH sat a ian i Heal Ha HE val St dancs ieee it i Ht ee ei naa a at A. AS! Appendix F On consideration «hereof, it 1s now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said Dis: United States Court of Appeals trict Court entered September 5, 1986, be, and the same is For Tee Trap Cmcurt hereby affirmed Costs taxed against the appellants All of the above in accordance with the oprmon of this Court Ne. 86 1995 ATTEST: __ ff Saucy Mavos ALBERT ). FERENS and MARGARET L. FERENS. November 25, 1988 Clerk his wife vs DEERE & COMPANY (D.C. Civil No. 85-1534) ALBERT J. FERENS and MARGARET L. FERENS. hes wife “ss JOHN DEERE COMPANY, a/k/a DEERE & COMPANY (D.C. Civil No. 85-2725) ALBERT J. FERENS, and MARGARET L. FERENS. hrs wife. Appetiants (D.C. Ciwil No. 85-156 & 85-2725) On Appeal From the U aited States District ( cert Fer the Westera District of Pennsylvania Present: GIBBONS, Chief Judge. SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circus Judges JUDGMENT ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Thos cause came on to be beard on the record from the Unined States District Court for the Western District of Pennsy!vamia and was submitted on remand from the Supreme Court of the Unsted States on August §. | 985 A-$2 Appendix F United States Court of Appeals Foe Tee Temo Crecurr No. 86-3595 ALBERT }. PERENS and MARGARET L. PERENS., his wile Appellants vs JOHN DEERE COMPANY, a/k/a DEERE & COMPANY Appellee eT Sar Petition for Rehearing Present GIBBONS, Chief Judge, SEITZ, HIGGINBOT- HAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON. SCIRICA, COWEN, and ALDISERT,* Circus Judges The petition for rehearing fled by appellant in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circurt judges of the curcurt in regular active service. and no judge who concurred in the decision hav- ing asked for rehearing. and a mayonty of the circuit judges of the corcurt in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing 1s BY THE COURT, ef Jous J. Geeeows Dated: January 5, 1989 Chnef Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0464%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.