Back in 2006, people were still carrying around Motorola Razrs, “YouTube” was barely a year old, and nobody had heard of an iPhone. That is when the device in Aceste v. Stryker Corp., 2026 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1215 (Lucas Cty. C.P. Feb. 4, 2016),was implanted. By the time the case was filed in 2015
As one court succinctly put it over a decade ago: “No federal appellate court has approved a nationwide personal injury, product liability or medical monitoring class.” Durocher v. NCAA, 2015 WL 1505675, at *10 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2015). That remains true today—and the plaintiff in Lester v. Abiomed, Inc., 2026 WL
Five months ago, we posted on a decision from an Ohio intermediate appellate court finding that a state AG action against sellers of vaping products was impliedly preempted under Buckman. Part of what got our attention about the decision in State ex rel. Yost v. Cent. Tobacco & Stuff, Inc., No. 24 CAE
Today’s case, Clayton v. Zimmer United States, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213345 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2025), marks two weeks in a row where we discuss good (for the defense) court decisions coming out of Ohio. Meanwhile, in our non-blogging-but-actually-paying part of our job, we’re on something like our fifth week in a
It feels like 20 years ago when we were doing almost monthly fen-phen diet drug trials in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The old timey-air-conditioning units in City Hall, along with subways rumbling underfoot, occasionally drowned out the testimony of plaintiff experts taking both scientific studies and internal company documents out of context. That
We start with some disclaimers. Not the usual disclaimers about which of the Blog authors’ respective firms deny responsibility for the post. We disclaim that we care much about the availability of cigarettes and vaping products, except insofar as litigation over them says something about litigation over medical products and the general interplay between state
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2024 WL 5049302, 2024 Ohio Lexis 2785 (Ohio Dec. 10, 2024), which was our third best case of that year, was primarily a statutory interpretation case involving the Ohio Product Liability Act (“OPLA”), and specifically Ohio Rev. Code §2307.71(b)
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
Is the question we are asking ourselves after reading Butler v. 3M Company, 2024 WL 5054884 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2024). Because if plaintiffs get to amend their complaints post-remand to add whole new claims and allegations, then the MDL process of litigating based on a master complaint doesn’t seem to make a lot
This has been a big year for blood and tissue statute decisions. Given their subject matter, we’ve previously lamented that the decisions didn’t fall closer to Halloween. While not quite coinciding with our doorbells ringing and handing out candy to the little ones, today’s decision is close enough for a little seasonal digression.
Continue Reading Another Blood and Tissue Statute Win