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.
(Oh., filed January 8, 2024): Arguing that the Ohio Product Liability Act, as amended in 2005 and
2007, supersedes this Court’s divided opinion in City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and
clarifies that Ohio recognizes public nuisance’s traditional limits and does not allow “any public nuisance claim or cause of action at common law in which it is alleged that the . . . sale of a product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.” Public nuisance has traditionally been limited to conduct that interferes with the use of real property and the Ohio General Assembly has confirmed that public nuisance does not extend to the sale of lawful products. The federal district court’s decision contravenes settled nuisance law and will wreak havoc on Ohio businesses if it is not repudiated.
The Pelican State deserves a judicial system that stands firmly on principles — not one swayed by the most recent political winds.
Judges must recognize these cases for what they are: a cynical attempt to turn the suffering of families into a litigation jackpot.
A recent Delaware case shows that not all states follow the Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert ruling.
Republican Candidate Derek Brown Urged to Sign Pledge
Maryland taxpayers should be assured that state leadership is working in their best interests and not those of entrepreneurial trial lawyers.
ATRA Declares State a ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ Amid Liability Onslaught