context: Here, we find no conflict between Pennsylvania and New Jersey law: both rely on the Restatement (Second) of Torts and require similar elements for defamation. Accordingly, we need not resolve the conflict-of-law issue, and may "refer interchangeably" to Pennsylvania and New Jersey law when reviewing Kerrigan's defamation claim.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 23 F.3d 808, 813
citation_a.parenthetical: applying both states' laws where there was a false conflict
citation_a.sentence: Lucker Mfg. v. Home Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 808, 813 (3d Cir.1994) (applying both states’ laws where there was a false conflict); see also Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110, 1114-15 (1st Cir.1993) (“We need not resolve the [conflict-of-law] issue ... as the outcome is the same under the substantive law of either jurisdiction.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 983 F.2d 1110, 1114-15
citation_b.parenthetical: "We need not resolve the [conflict-of-law] issue ... as the outcome is the same under the substantive law of either jurisdiction."
citation_b.sentence: Lucker Mfg. v. Home Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 808, 813 (3d Cir.1994) (applying both states’ laws where there was a false conflict); see also Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110, 1114-15 (1st Cir.1993) (“We need not resolve the [conflict-of-law] issue ... as the outcome is the same under the substantive law of either jurisdiction.”).