Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Tim Sandefur asks this only half-facetiously as he reviews mass torts. Of course, as a must-read comment letter to FASB (via the indispensable Beck/Herrmann) submitted by six pharmaceutical companies notes, “A mass tort occurs when the plaintiffs’ bar decides to invest in it.”
{ 5 comments }
Attorneys Thomas R. Bender, Richard O. Faulk, and John S. Gray analyze the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling in the lead paint case, detailing the history of the case and note the implications for other public-nuisance suits in the global warming and mortgage foreclosure fields.
{ 1 comment }
Those interested in the issue of the growing abuse of “public nuisance” as a cause of action can do little better than to read the law review article by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP partners Richard O. Faulk and John S. Gray at 2007 Mich. St. L. Rev. 941, cited by the Rhode Island Supreme Court four times in its unanimous opinion rejecting public nuisance theory as a means to sue lead paint manufacturers (via Androvett).
{ 1 comment }
So AP reports. More details as they become available.
9:43: AP/Boston Globe reports a dramatic rejection of public-nuisance theory, holding the case should’ve been dismissed years ago. Good news that. The Rhode Island Supreme Court decision was unanimous.
5:00: Here is the opinion itself. James Beck has the most comprehensive analysis of the opinion so far; Walter gives thorough background at Point of Law as well as a roundup of other links. The defendants and NAM have released statements; Motley Rice claims they were doing it for the children, which doesn’t explain their self-serving settlement with DuPont or why they asked for a highly inefficient remediation remedy that would have maximized their attorneys’ fees.
Also: Jonathan Turley (who I just learned has a year-old blog with over a thousand posts), who, to his credit, has opposed such lawsuits; OpenMarket; Jane Genova; Publius. Attorney General Patrick Lynch is unhappy about the legal setback to his campaign contributors constituents.
Existing abatement efforts already required of landlords under Rhode Island law mean that lead paint exposure is at an all-time low in the state–evidence that was excluded at trial.
{ 3 comments }
According to professor Tony Sebok, both sides botched the May 15 oral argument (available on webcast) over the multi-billion dollar lead-paint “public nuisance” judgment, but the plaintiffs botched it worse. Sebok predicts “that the Rhode Island Supreme Court will understand what is at stake in this case, and do the right thing. It will act like a responsible common law court and interpret the doctrine of public nuisance in a principled way—which in this case means drawing the line between tort and public nuisance, and drawing that line in favor of the defendants.” A decision is expected by July 4.
(Disclosure: I purchased stock in Sherwin-Williams and NL Industries shortly after the oral argument.)
{ 2 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Point of Law Volokh