facts, I find it necessary only to affirm the denial of International Paper Company’s motion to dismiss. I — I Even were I to reach the issue of the state law applicable in this case, I would not interpret the Act to require a court sitting in the State where the injury has occurred (affected State) to apply the nuisance law of the State from which the pollution emanates (source State). Nothing in the Act preempts the usual two-step analysis undertaken by federal district courts to determine which state tort law should be applied in interstate tort suits. First, the district court must apply the conflict-of-law rules of the State in which the court sits. See Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U. S. 3, 4 (1975); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487, 496 (1941) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Vermont District Court should apply
holding that erie doctrine applies to conflictoflaw rules holding that rookerfeldman doctrine applies only where state court appeals process has run its full course holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies recognizing doctrine holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law