Arrin Farrar, et ux. v. Textron Aviation, Inc., et al.

This Petition asks the Court to consider the following questions:

1. Have various State and Federal Courts, when asked to apply The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994,1 inconsistently legislated from the bench by denying litigants a right to a jury trial once an initial determination has been made that an issue of fact has been created by the replacement of parts with new?

2. Have various State Federal Courts, when asked to apply The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, inconsistently denied litigants a right to jury trial once there has been an issue of fact created by evidence WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHTXLUHG E\ WKH )$$ IRU FHUWLÀFDWLRQ or continuing airworthiness of an aircraft has been knowingly withheld by a manufacturer?

3. Is there a split amongst the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and State Appellate Courts in the application of the Rolling Provision and Knowing Misrepresentation Provision of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 such that some deny a litigant the right to a jury trial once an issue of fact is raised by evidence thus denying these litigants procedural and substantive due process?

4. Is there a denial of procedural and substantive Due Process when a Court in interpreting the application of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 decides

5. The General Aviation Revitalization Act, Pub. L. No. 103- 298, 108 Stat. 155, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, note.