- Bayer seen as likely to get new trial on punitive-damages side of glyphosate/Roundup loss [Jim Christie and Ludwig Burger, Reuters, earlier]
- Supreme Court declines to review California judgment finding that long-ago advertising of lead paint created public nuisance for which makers are now financially liable [Greg Stohr/Bloomberg, Donald Kochan/Federalist Society, John Sammon/NorCal Record]
- When if ever can you get into federal court with your takings claim? Oral argument in the Knick v. Township of Scott case [Miriam Seifter/SCOTUSBlog, Gideon Kanner, Robert Thomas/Inverse Condemnation first, second, third, fourth posts]
- “Stop trying to get workers out of their cars” [Robert Poole, Jr./Reason]
- “U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Teenagers’ Climate Lawsuit” [Greg Stohr/Bloomberg] “The European Court of Justice has recently ruled that ten private citizens, from Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Sweden and Fiji can sue the European Union for negligence in its inaction on climate change.” [Theodore Dalrymple, Law and Liberty]
- “Trump’s EPA is having a hard time in federal court” [Jonathan Adler]
Filed under: climate change, eminent domain, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, lead paint, public nuisance, Supreme Court
One Comment
Re: lead paint advertising
From Stohr/Bloomberg
” The trial judge later set the tentative amount the companies must pay at $409 million, a figure designed to cover the cost of inspection and abatement in more than a million homes built before 1951.”
Why would a judge issue such an obviously inadequate, never-to-be-achieved remedy? Starter estimates for cleanup are near $4 billion. It just invites contempt. Or is this just a preventative move to bar re-litigation?
Lead paint maker NL Industries settled with the counties for $60 million in May as part of the same suit. The original judgement was $1.15 billion.