Epstein Secrets

federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision." • Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February 1, 1997 in the event that Epstein

"federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision."' Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more l

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February 1, 1997 in the event that Epstein

"federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision." ' Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States I Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more l

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February I, 1997 in the event that Epstein