*2 KALODNER, еntitled Cir- we deem ourselves to informa- and Before BIGGS seeking Judges, WHIPPLE, to as domiciles. In District tion those and cuit in Judge. information we no wise bind our- this dissenting by selves, suggested as the opinion, any particular to of law THE the OPINION OF COURT domicile. PER CURIAM: dissenting seeking opinion also put the The to on order Our suggests that since the District Court Moore’s to Mrs. Leta record facts as applied Moore the law of the state of the and domiciles of the domicilе the including family family, of acci domicile at the time the of her members filing party neither at the dent since the time of appli judgment court bar at date in this the Court’s suit at the accept Court, this we should by 311 cation of this thе District was entered Thus, binding 984, F.Supp. appellant, the law of the case. as the Unit reaching that, by implies in our expressly im dissent the nor ed neither any as we plication decision the relevant issue. to decides blindly aрply designed enun procure a rule of law what should The order is to by may prove in the District if this to essential infоrmation ciated Court even be is, indeed, laws, respect is This a nov to an of i. incorrect. issue of conflict suit.1, governs proposition. e., pending The law el function what the 2 by applying say court is to cases do not that will law We the any to particular “correct” rules law deter mem of of the domicile of faсts by adop mined the District Court. The ber the at the of Moore either suggested procedure litigation tion thе time the at was or commenced dissenting go opinion far un to the date was entered dermine this function.3 аppellant, District Court Contrary 2. the statement in the dis 1. Mr. and Mrs. Moore both af submitted opinion senting “utterly (which uncontroverted) that there is fidavits stating precedent” application they for the law that were domiciled in Mаine 15, state of domicile at the date the (July at the time of the accident brought judg 1965) Plattsburg, was action or at the date but moved to New entered, pages ment was we think that such in 1966. 10a- York June of See Koplik Appеndix. Appellant’s does exist. See v. P. 13a of Neither Trucking Corp., 1, they acquired N.J. 27 A.2d 34 a 141 affidavit that new states (1958) 421, ; Emery Emery, v. 45 Cal.2d in York domicile New York or that New Kjeldsen (1955); January 15, P.2d Bal 289 218 their was 1969 domicile lard, 952, brought. 52 Misc.2d N.Y.S.2d Dis 277 —the date suit (1967). Kapelski, 324 Also see Purcell v. trict Court docket shows Mrs. Moore’s 1971). (3 380, 383, Omaha, Circle, 444 F.2d note 7 Cir. Harman address “3334 is, however, There at least which one case also that Nebraska.” It should be noted directly viz., contrary, Doiron is sworn to sub thе affidavits were Doiron, 1, (1968). 1, 241 A.2d 109 N.H. 372 in 1969. scribed Nebraska on October again, Once the record silent as Gypsum Co., they 333 Unitеd States Cf. were domiciled in Nebraska 364, 525, 387, January 15, possible 92 L.Ed. 68 S.Ct. U.S. It is also Oursler, (1948) ; parties yet 289 2d Hurn v. in 746 were domiciled 586, Januаry 15, L.Ed. 53 S.Ct. 77 third However, U.S. unknown state Supreme (1933) Pennsylvania’s appears where the 1148 it compelled only its as to fеlt to state view it connection with case is that place law the lower courts correct wherе where tort occurred. See McSwain, did this misstated the law. The Court McSwain v. Pa. Pennsyl be (1966), did not need to the isues where A.2d 677 in of the case. Philadelphia decided order vania has ruled that concerning interspousal also United States im See an issue Bank, munity Nat’l be tortious conduct should governed L.Ed.2d 915 the domicile spouses. KALODNER, Judge (dissеnt- children, injuries occasioned ing). negligent operation defendant’s of an they passen- automobile gers. it
I from Order dissent because implicitly inescapably a de- holds that day domicile on the fendant’s servе instant Order does not fil- *3 signifi-
ing dispositive economy, judicial an action or in the here Court deciding issue on con- cance in based below. flict of laws. holding implicit utterly with-
That
out and it is here an exercise futility. Moreover, District Court here defendant, finding
made fact the Moore, Leta and children her husband July 15, were domiciled in Maine S.A., Escuintla, Guatemala, SALTO, EL 1965, when the defendant’s husband C.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, passengers children were while negligently оperated in an automobile CO., Defendant-Appellant. PSG Pennsylvania defendant on Turn- pike. The District held that both S.A., SALTO, Escuintla, Guatemala, EL Pennsylvania apply Maine and doc- A., Plaintiff-Appellee, immunity trine precludеs interfamilial spouse suits one GREENBERG, Philip S. Defendant- another and of parent, minor children Appellant. “absolving and this doctrine has parties.” S.A., SALTO, Guatemala, third Escuintla, effect on EL C.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, Pennsylvania, Court further hеld that apply under its conflicts would law of the state where the Philip GREENBERG, S. Defendant- accident, domiciled at time of Appellee. viz., Maine. find- The District Court’s Nos. ing holding as to domicile and its United Court of States Pennsylvania Ninth Cirсuit. state of domicile are not May 12, 1971. appeal. Rehearing As Modified on Denial of single question presented critical appeal is whether instant States, by reason of a state doc- immunity trine of interfamiliаl re- with spect actions, to tort is barred from re-
covering defendant, pursuant from the provisions
to the Care Medical Act, Recovery seq., 42 U.S.C.A. 2651 et §
the vаlue of medical care furnished to sergeant, an Air Force issue was considered der to the case where two possibly applicable identical. contention laws were cannot, abandoned bеen In the case on the before the instant present record, But Court. see Dick New York Life determine Co., 437, 444-445, possibly
Ins.
identical
laws
are
possibly applica-