Key Cases: Public SuitsCity of Chicago v American Cyanamid Location: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Capsule Summary: In a suit filed on September 5, 2002, the City of Chicago alleged that former manufacturers of lead pigment had created a "public nuisance" and should be required to abate the claimed nuisance. The defendants asked the Circuit Court to dismiss the lawsuit because the City was unable to show that any defendant had caused the harm alleged. The Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed the City’s suit on October 7, 2003, saying: “Defendants do not have the power to abate the described nuisance as plaintiff requests because they are not in control of the premises containing the painted surfaces….Those surfaces are on private property owned by others. Defendants lost control over their products at the point of sale. As a matter of basic equitable jurisprudence, the court would not enter an order compelling defendants to do something that they have no power to do." The City appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Update: On May 25, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the City of Chicago’s petition for leave to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision, thus ending the case. Key Documents:
Boston Housing Authority v. Sherwin-Williams Co. Location: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Capsule Summary: This case was originally brought against the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) by some of its residents. The BHA sought to bring former lead pigment producers and the Lead Industries Association into the case. Update: All claims against the lead pigment producers and the LIA were dropped on November 16, 1993, when the BHA voluntarily dismissed the case.
City of Philadelphia v. LIA Location: U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania Capsule Summary: The City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Housing Authority filed a purported nationwide class action lawsuit of cities and housing authorities. The plaintiffs sought to use collective liability theories, including market share liability. Update: In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case. The court rejected the use of collective liability theories, including market share liability. Key Documents: Gould v. HANO; Allen v. HANO; Burnett v. HANO; Christy v. HANO; Coverson v. HANO; Hall v. HANO; Harris v. HANO; Hunter v. HANO; Murry v. HANO; Thomson v. HANO; White v. HANO; (Freddie Mae) Williams v. HANO; (Linda) Williams v. HANO; Willis v. HANO Location: Civil District Court for The Parish of Orleans Capsule Summary: This series of suits by residents against the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) was filed beginning in 1989. HANO, acting as third-party plaintiff, sought to bring into the cases former lead pigment producers. Update: The Court granted the former lead pigment producers' motions to dismiss the third party complaints in a series of decisions in the early 1990s. The Gould decision set the precedent for the remaining cases.
Spring Branch Independent School District v. Lead Industries Association
Location: District Court of Harris County, Texas Capsule Summary: Filed in June 2000 by a Houston suburban school district, this suit sought to hold former lead pigment manufacturers liable for the costs of abating lead paint in 40 buildings erected between 1950 and 1977. All defendants except NL Industries were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs during discovery. Update: In June 2004, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed a summary judgment order dismissing the case against NL. The trial court granted NL's summary judgment motion in June 2002. The Appeals Court said "the [school] District disregards the bedrock principle of Texas law that a plaintiff must identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured it." |
|
|
This Site Is Sponsored By Companies That Are Involved
in Lead Pigment Litigation
For More Information Please Email info@leadlawsuits.com
or Call 866-202-2476
|