On appeal, the District Court concluded that although the § 502(b)(6) cap was applicable, April 6, 1992 could not be the correct date because: (1) the concepts of repossession and surrender as utilized in § 502(b)(6) must be construed in accordance with state law; (2) under Pennsylvania law, liability for future (or reserved) rent is terminated by the lessor’s repossession of the property; and (3) in refusing to open Arch’s confessed judgment against Blatstein, the Superior Court affirmed Blatstein’s liability through the end of the lease term. Accordingly, the District Court concluded, the Superior Court must have concluded that the premises were not surrendered on April 6, 1992. That decision will not be reconsidered. See TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 240 F.2d 711, 713 (3d Cir. 1957) (<HOLDING>). The District Court remanded the issue to the
holding that in absence of changed circumstances and except there be some other most cogent reason when judge makes or denies interlocutory order and when appeal lies as of right from such order it should not be reconsidered even by judge who made the order much less by another judge holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding that the rule preventing one judge of a district court from overruling a decision by another judge of the same court except under exceptional circumstances should be followed in the third circuit holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand