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
Preemption is one of our favorite topics, not only because it is a powerful defense, but also because the intricacies of preemption and its many flavors make it inherently interesting—at least to us. We lamented just yesterday that many judges reflexively deny motions to dismiss on preemption, but others see the light from the get
Even though lawyers who bill for their time defending product liability cases might favor those cases sticking around and plaintiffs getting many chances before inevitable dismissals with prejudice, we have been clear that we think plaintiffs should not get to re-plead around preemption once courts have defined the preempted path. There seems to be an
Happy Valentine’s Day. To celebrate, we will discuss a court decision that we love.
Preemption and the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) are two of the best friends a drug/device defense lawyer has. Both show up in Groeschen v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 2024 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pleas Feb. 2, 2024). As
None of our regular bloggers are solo practitioners. And we’ve all been practicing for quite some time. So, it is fair to stay that we’ve all had ample opportunity to offer writing advice to more junior lawyers. Know your audience. Use active voice. Stop using legalese. Avoid redundancy. And be direct and concise. Which
Growing up down in Georgia, Bexis used the phrase “a whole lotta nuthin’” frequently when encountering things (like the 1970s Underground Atlanta tourist trap) or people (like Lester Maddox, who governed the same way he rode bicycles) that didn’t impress him much. That’s the phrase that came to mind when we read In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, ___ F.4th ___, 2023 WL 8183812 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023). Indeed, the opening sentence of the du Pont opinion was: “Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis.” Id. at 81. And yes, du Pont was an appeal from yet another bizarrely pro-plaintiff MDL decision.Continue Reading A Whole Lotta Nuthin’
We’ve written about Lone Pine orders many times before. (Here and here, for example.) In brief, a Lone Pine order (so-called because that is the name of the seminal New Jersey case) requires plaintiffs to furnish medical evidence, usually in the form of an expert affidavit, showing that the plaintiff suffered from the