Public Nuisance Litigation
 Public Nuisance and Market Share Liability
City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co. No. SC 88230 Supreme Court Of Missouri
Agreeing with NCLC, the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs, including governmental entities, must demonstrate individual causation in public nuisance actions. NCLC filed a brief describing efforts by the plaintiffs' bar to expand the public nuisance tort beyond its traditional boundaries. In this lead paint abatement action, the City of St. Louis attempted to follow their lead by seeking a reduced standard for the proof of individual causation. Instead of demonstrating that the defendant in fact sold lead paint to homeowners in St. Louis, the city would like to rely on a theory of market share liability. In a 1984 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court properly rejected such an approach as it applies to private plaintiffs. In its brief, NCLC made clear that no justification exists for treating governmental entities any differently.
Amicus brief filed 3/7/07. Decision 6/12/07.  View brief  Climate Change Debate
State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power et al. and Open Space Institute, et al.
v. American Electric Power, et al.Nos. 05-5104 and 05-5119 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Attorneys general from eight states—California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin—and the City of New York sued several of the nation's leading utility companies under the so-called "federal common law" of nuisance, which they claim protects the public from the threats of global warming. The plaintiffs are appealing a district court decision which rejected this novel legal theory on the grounds that courts are ill-suited to make public policy decisions on global warming. The plaintiffs have demanded that the utilities cut their carbon dioxide emissions by at least 3% per year for 10 years. NCLC's amicus brief warns that if plaintiffs are allowed to sue under public nuisance laws, any industry engaged in lawful activities may find itself in court simply because someone found their activities offensive or inconvenient.
Amicus briefs filed 3/2/06. Oral arguement held 6/7/06.
 Public Nuisance Claims under California Law
County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield CompanyNo.S142578 California Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court rejected review of an appellate court's decision to reinstate public nuisance claims against a group of lead paint manufacturers. In an amicus letter, NCLC argued that manufacturers in California could face virtually limitless product liability because the plaintiffs' bar uses public nuisance claims to evade statute of limitations defenses. In this case, for instance, the last use of lead paint was over twenty years ago.
Amicus letter filed 4/18/2006. Decision 6/21/06.
Use of Contingency Fee Arrangements by State Attorneys General
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Paint Industries Association
No. 2004-63-M.P.
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Concerned that the Rhode Island Attorney General created a substantial conflict of interest by farming out enforcement litigation to private counsel on a contingency fee basis, NCLC filed a brief with the state Supreme Court describing in detail the troubling relationships between state attorneys general and private counsel which have undermined public confidence in the states' primary litigators. In doing so, NCLC carefully distinguished between contingency fee arrangements entered into by plaintiffs with limited resources and similar agreements entered into by states which, by the very nature of the public interest they serve, should be concerned with more than maximizing potential recovery.
Amicus brief filed 4/3/06. Oral argument held 4/3/06. Decision 5/13/06.
|
Share This Page