The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Alarming U-turn
The Pelican State deserves a judicial system that stands firmly on principles — not one swayed by the most recent political winds.
Eike v. Allergan
(7th Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing. Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation. If plaintiffs’ novel standing theory were accepted, it would encourage lawyers to bring class-action suits over any business practice that could be portrayed as inefficient, based on conjecture that greater efficiency might have translated into savings for customers.
The Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position on March 6, 2017. The Court reversed the grant of class certification and ordered the case to be dismissed for lack of standing.
Latest News
View all news
Trial Lawyers’ Latest Target: Life-Sustaining Baby Formula
Judges must recognize these cases for what they are: a cynical attempt to turn the suffering of families into a litigation jackpot.
Wall Street Journal: Junk Science Sometimes Still Prevails in Court
A recent Delaware case shows that not all states follow the Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert ruling.
ATRA Applauds Utah AG Candidate Rudy Bautista for Signing Transparency Pledge
Republican Candidate Derek Brown Urged to Sign Pledge
Baltimore’s Opioid Lawsuit Is Wrong Approach to Overdose Crisis
Maryland taxpayers should be assured that state leadership is working in their best interests and not those of entrepreneurial trial lawyers.
ATRA Sounds Alarm on Colorado’s ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ in New Report
ATRA Declares State a ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ Amid Liability Onslaught