cited to us ... not only lack probative force in a judicial sense, but they are completely unpersuasive to support the argument that Congress intended the words “act or omission” to refer to the place where the negligence had its operative effect. The ease of application inherent in the rule urged ... lends a certain attractiveness, but we are bound to operate within the framework of the words chosen by Congress and not to question the wisdom of the latter in the process of construction. We conclude that Congress has, in the [FTCA], enacted a rulé which requires federal courts, in multistate tort actions, to look in the first instance to the law of the place where the acts of negligence took place. Id.; see, e.g., Ins. Co. of Pa. v. United States, 590 F.Supp. 435, 442 (S.D.Miss.1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, it is apparent that the allegedly
holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding that where acts or omissions of an outofstate tortfeasor caused an instate injury the law of tortfeasors state must be applied holding that liability may not be predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior because a supervisor can be liable only for his own acts or omissions holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state