from petitioner’s father, I must decide Whether there is any evidence in the record establishing that this conflict actually affected the adequacy of their representation. Cf. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981) (finding sufficient possibility of conflict of interest to remand for fact finding on issue of actual conflict of interest where employer hired attorney to defend employees); Quintero v. United States, 33 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1994) (remanding for hearing on Cuyler issue where a defendant in a drug ease was represented by an attorney paid for by an anonymous third party and the attorney suggested that the defendant not accept the plea offer from the government); but see United States v. Shaughnessy, 782 F.2d 118, 120 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). To establish that the conflict adversely
holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community holding that seller of frontend loader had no duty to warn injured worker concerning the dangers of operating the loader without a rops because the dangers were obvious under an objective standard recognizing inherent dangers of thirdpartypayer arrangement but finding defendant failed to prove that those dangers ripened into an actual conflict of interest holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known