Enforcement
  • Home
  • About
  • SCOTUS
    • SCOTUS and AMICI Briefs
    • SCOTUS Media Quotes
    • SCOTUS Amici Quotes
    • Briefing Highlights/Podcast
  • News
    • Newsroom
    • Latest Developments
  • History
    • The History of the Use of Lead-Based Paint
    • Litigation History
    • State Court Decisions
  • Resources
    • Legal Filings
    • California: The Aberration
    • California Lead Levels Chasing Zero
    • What Others Are Saying

Newsroom

  • December 17, 2013shutterstock_60731548_edited
    Statement by Bonnie J. Campbell on Behalf of Defendants in People of the State California, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.     
  • December 17, 2013
    Where The Court Went Wrong 
  • December 16, 2013
    Statement by Bonnie J. Campbell on Behalf of Defendants in People of the State California, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. 
  • September 23, 2013
    Statement by Bonnie J. Campbell on Behalf of Defendants in People of the State California, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. 
  • July 15, 2013
    Statement by Bonnie J. Campbell on Behalf of Defendants in People of the State California, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.

 

  • “The stakes are high. If the Supreme Court does not provide a course correction, manufacturers will face even more lawsuits seeking massive and unprincipled liability. Already, this misuse of tort law has inspired several other public nuisance cases, putting manufacturing jobs at risk in order to line the pockets of trial lawyers.”

    Lindsey de la Torre Executive Director, National Association of Manufacturers (Quoted in Manufacturers Accountability Project Blog, August 20, 2018)

  • “You can’t demand companies to have clairvoyance, . . . It’s the precedent we’re concerned about. We believe that what they’re doing in regard to Sherwin-Williams certainly would apply to many other categories.”

    “We’re constantly learning things about products we didn’t think were of any concern,”

    Dan Jaffe Group EVP, Government Relations, Association of National Advertisers (Quoted in Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2018)

  • “Just in the last twelve months, in federal courts alone, at least 80 new public nuisance cases of this sort have been filed by states and other government entities against American businesses, all seeking to impose sweeping liability based on similarly novel theories. . . The recent avalanche of public nuisance claims under the new California doctrine will bury American business in even greater litigation costs and burdens.”

    U.S. Chamber attorney Jeffrey Bucholtz (Quoted in Law.com, August 16, 2018)

  • “The California court has retroactively imposed multi-millions of dollars of damages on Sherwin Williams by applying today’s scientific standards to ads that were published decades ago.”

    Dan Jaffe Group EVP, Government Relations, Association of National Advertisers (Quoted in Adweek, August 21, 2018)

  • “If SCOTUS takes this case, I hope that they will find against it. We think it is a very serious threat to advertisers and honest advertisers.”

    Dan Jaffe Group EVP, Government Relations, Association of National Advertisers (Quoted in Adweek, August 21, 2018)

  • “The Court should hear the case and help shut the door on this baseless litigation.  These types of lawsuits undermine the fairness of our nation’s legal system, our manufacturing base and our economy.”

    Lindsey de la Torre Executive Director , National Association of Manufacturers (Quoted in Manufacturers Accountability Project Blog, August 20, 2018)

  • “Imagine that late one evening, around closing time, after dinner with a friend, the waiter hands you a bill for $5,000. You object, . . .The host arrives and explains that the other patrons left without paying. The restaurant cannot track them down. You, however, are here. You, therefore, shall pay—for everyone.”

    Corbin Barthold Litigation counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation (Quoted in Law.com, August 16, 2018)

  • “There is a deep and growing split between the conservative judges who are being appointed to the federal bench and the progressive judges who dominate state courts in places like California. The tension between these rival judicial philosophies is highlighted by the 2017 decision of People of California v. ConAgra and Sherwin-Williams . . .”

    Richard Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University (Quoted in Ricochet.com, July 30, 2018)

  • “The federal courts must rein in the runaway state court in California. How could there not be a violation of speech and property rights if this lawless effort to fund California’s misguided public health campaign by unsupportable tort judgments is sustained?”

    Richard Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University (Quoted in Ricochet.com, July 30, 2018)

  • “It is commonly stated that ‘A public nuisance is a criminal wrong.’ Nothing of this sort remotely arises from the truthful and lawful advertisements and circulars done years before the lead paint was applied by someone else.”

    Richard Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University (Quoted in Ricochet.com, July 30, 2018)

  • “All eyes are on the Supreme Court to see if it will grant the Petitions filed by Sherwin Williams and ConAgra. One thing is for sure, progressives in local governments should be more judicious when wielding the mighty power of government-sponsored litigation.”

    Phil Goldberg Director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Civil Justice (Writes in The Hill September 21, 2018)

  • “California’s decision is dangerously out of step with fundamental principles of tort and constitutional law.  To protect American commerce, due process, and the First Amendment, the high court should take up this case.”

    John S. Baker, Jr. Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University Law Center, and Michael I. Krauss is Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University (Writes in The Federalist Society Blog October 2, 2018)

  • “Indeed, the State of California and the federal government specified the use of lead paint on residential interiors, and residential lead paint was not banned by the federal government until 1978. There is no way these companies, or other potential defendants facing future ‘public nuisance’ liability claims, could have foreseen what has or can happen to them under the opinion’s draconian reach.

    The California decision is the latest, and perhaps boldest, exploitation of the vagueness of public nuisance jurisprudence that is sweeping the country. The underpinnings of the decision will be used, and in fact have already been used, to target a growing list of stigmatized defendants.”

    Caitlin Colman Vice President of Government Affairs at the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) (Writes in the Investor’s Business Daily October 3, 2018)

  • “The California court engaged in a retroactive re-characterization of then-truthful speech about a lawful product and found it “misleading” based on decades of subsequent medical knowledge. The ruling utterly disregards U.S. Supreme Court precedents permitting the truthful promotion of lawful products.”

    J. Andrew Doyle President and CEO of The American Coatings Association (Writes in Durability + Design October 4, 2018)

UnderStanding Lead Pigment Litigation
  • Contact Us
© 2018 Understanding lead pigment litigation.
This Site Is Sponsored By Companies That Are Involved in Lead Pigment Litigation
For More Information Please Contact us