About UsPursuing Public Nuisance Claims Can Create Costly Headaches for Government Plaintiffs
Here’s hoping that the government lawyers responsible for pursuing the pending public nuisance litigation in Santa Clara v. ARCO et al take a close look at the recent cost award against the state of Rhode Island described in this article. Read More »
Pollution vs. Lawful Product: Nuisance vs. Non-Nuisance
In a November 22, 2008 post on ClassActionBlawg.com, Paul Karlsgodt juxtaposed the Rhode Island Supreme Court's July 1, 2008 decision in State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, 951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008), and the Supreme Court of Canada's November 20, 2008 decision in St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. v. Barrette, 2008 SCC 64. They should not, however, be confused as comparable "public nuisance class actions."
Global Warming and Public Nuisance II
My last blog entry summarized a recent law review article about climate change nuisance suits. The article's point of view rejected litigation as the appropriate mechanism to address public policy concerns and to dispute policy decisions by the other branches of government. Language from a professor's summary of his recent article on the same subject, favoring such suits, confirms that not only the effect, but the goal, of such suits is to challenge the policy decisions of the other branches. Read More »
Contingency Fee Counsel for Public Nuisance Lawsuits Comes at the Expense of the Taxpayers
In an opinion piece discussing the growing cottage industry in questionable public nuisance litigation, Lisa Rickard of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform writes this week about the financial incentive that the Motley Rice firm had, as outside contingent fee counsel, to pursue such public nuisance claims unsuccessfully in Rhode Island - at the expense of the people of that state. She notes, in part, that: Read More »
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association
author: Thomas R. Bender
Summary Introduction
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the State of Rhode Island “cannot allege” facts sufficient to state a claim for common law public nuisance against lead pigment manufacturers. It based its decision on two basic factors: 1) although the manufacturers placed lead pigment into the stream of commerce, they did not control it at the time it harmed the children; and 2) that harm did not constitute an interference with a public right for purposes of a common law public nuisance. Read More »
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association
author: Thomas R. Bender
Summary Introduction
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the State of Rhode Island “cannot allege” facts sufficient to state a claim for common law public nuisance against lead pigment manufacturers. It based its decision on two basic factors: 1) although the manufacturers placed lead pigment into the stream of commerce, they did not control it at the time it harmed the children; and 2) that harm did not constitute an interference with a public right for purposes of a common law public nuisance. Read More »
Public Nuisance: A Historical Perspective
author: John Gray
Syllabus1
Legally, the term “nuisance” is traditionally used in three ways: (1) to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney); (2) to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors); and (3) to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two.2 Read More »
Web Clips
Tell others about Nuisance Law.com! Below is a web clip featuring a quote from the recent Supreme Court of Rhode Island decision for you to post on your site or blog. It links back to NuisanceLaw.com to make sharing easy.
