This is from the Holland & Knight side of the Blog only.

If you have followed the Blog, then you will know that we have long touted the importance of Erie deference by federal courts sitting in diversity.  We have also questioned the expansion of tort law to allow governmental entities to use public nuisance to shift the costs of governmental services to private entities without calling it a tax.  We have even discussed the issue of abrogation of common law claims, which can be seen as a lingering source of unchecked liability, when a state enacts a product liability act.  For various reasons, however, we have largely declined to comment on the use of public nuisance as the primary theory for governmental entities as plaintiffs in opioid litigation.  Today’s post is an exception, and it deals with a pretty significant decision, which we think is overdue.Continue Reading Ohio Does Not Recognize Public Nuisance Claims For Products

Great decision from the Paraquat MDL recently, rejecting public nuisance claims in the product liability context.  In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 451898 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2022), involved what, in the herbicide context, is the equivalent of a prescription drug.  That product “is not available for purchase by the public or

Perhaps you recall how President Trump campaigned on behalf of “Big Luther” Strange in Alabama. Strange had been appointed by Alabama’s Governor to fill the Alabama United States Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions when Sessions became U.S Attorney General. Trump supported Strange’s effort to win election to the seat in his own right for

Another state rejects public nuisance in the product liability context – although only after the defendants were forced through “the longest trial in [state] history.”
What did the Rhode Island Supreme Court hold in State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008). Here’s a synopsis:
(1) The court finally

A recent opinion crossed our desk: Independence County v. Pfizer, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 398980 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 11, 2008). The opinion has generated a bit of interest because of the unusual nature of the claim – which is, we suppose, to be expected where, as here, a local government has