SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TideGlider who wrote (38176)2/3/2009 10:21:25 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
Motley Paint Crew
A rebuke to the AG-trial bar gang.
FEBRUARY 3, 2009

The trial lawyer set is getting a lesson in the real definition of "public nuisance." Late last month, Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein ruled that defendants in a legendary lead-paint litigation should be reimbursed for $242,000 in "co-examiner costs" for a lawsuit they won in July. The reimbursement may be pocket change to some, but it sends a strong signal to trial lawyers and state Attorneys General that filing frivolous lawsuits is not cost-free.

In 2006, after years of litigation, a jury ruled that three paint manufacturers were liable for the cost of cleaning up lead paint in homes across the state -- a price tag estimated in the billions. While defendants appealed, the court appointed outside experts to consult on Attorney General Patrick Lynch's proposed $2.4 billion in remedies, which required that the defendants pay fees and expenses as they went along.

In July, the state supreme court overturned the entire verdict, which was based on a theory of "public nuisance" originally dreamed up by South Carolina firm Motley Rice. The law firm worked hand-in-hand with then state Attorney General (now Democratic Senator) Sheldon Whitehouse and later Mr. Lynch on the nuisance claim, a way to ...

Message 25380231