More on the decision by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to drop the state’s public nuisance suit against paint manufacturers.
- Bloomberg, “Ohio Drops Lawsuits Over Lead Paint Against Sherwin-Williams“
- Columbus Dispatch, “State dismisses lead-paint lawsuit“
- Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Ohio drops lead-paint lawsuit against Sherwin-Williams Co.“
Jane Genova at Law and More tells us what remains in the way of overreaching lawsuits that abuse the intent of public nuisance laws. Just one:
That’s the Santa Clara, California litigation against former lead paint companies such as Sherwin-Williams and ARCO.
Currently, the contingency arrangement in that litigation is under review by the CA Supreme Court. The trial court had ruled against the use of contingency in complaints filed by government entities. The CA appeals court ruled that contingency is acceptable if litigation is under the control of the government entity. Here is that appeals court’s opinion H031540.
In Rhode Island and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, lead paint public nuisance lawsuits went to trial. In both cases the defendants won. In RI, the defendants won a motion for reimbursement by the plaintiff – that is the state of RI -of certain costs associated with the abatement Co-Examiner. Here is that ruling from RI Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein Download DOC. It’s expected that was simply the first of a number of “invoices” for the winners in the litigation to seek compensation for certain expenses during the nine years that litigation took place.
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011