SCOTUS Media Quotes

 

“This creates perverse incentives for property owners not to maintain their properties, knowing they can shift responsibility to the paint manufacturers who will be forced to pay for this scheme.” – Kevin Marchman, Board Chair and Managing Director of NOAAH, the National Organization of African Americans in Housing
(Writes in RealClear Policy September 21, 2018)

“Indiana and other states are sufficiently concerned about this alarming trajectory in the law that we have urged the Supreme Court to hear the Sherwin-Williams case. The Supreme Court now has a rare chance to rein in the California court and demarcate the constitutional boundaries of acceptable public nuisance lawsuits.” – Thomas M. Fisher, the solicitor general of Indiana
(Writes in the  Washington Times,  September 19, 2018)

“You can’t simply target people like that, unless you can show that they’re somehow responsible for it, and you can’t show that they’re responsible for it unless you have some viable theory of liability and the four theories…over promotion, public nuisance, product liability and misrepresentation, all float,”  – Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago
(Quoted in the Northern California Record, September 19, 2018)

“So, the basis for the imposition of this massive retroactive liability was not the manufacture, sale, or application of lead paint to the interiors of residences. Instead, Sherwin-Williams and the two other corporate defendants were held liable solely because they engaged in lawful commercial speech.”   – Dan Jaffe, Group EVP, Government Relations, Association of National Advertisers
(Writes in the Washington Examiner, September 18, 2018)

“It would be worth the Court’s time to take these cases, because these are not just a couple of cases deciding whether a couple of paint manufacturers have to pay some money.  The cases involve important, broad principles of law affecting our overall system and determining the values within it that we can expect the courts to protect.” – Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law

“Review in the Sherwin Williams and ConAgra cases would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the law of public nuisance not just in these lead paint promotional claims but also clarify the limits of public nuisance doctrine more broadly.” – Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law
(Writes in a blog for Federalist Society, September 17, 2018)

“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.”
— Executive Director Lindsey de la Torre, 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.”
Executive Director Lindsey de la Torre, 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)