Supreme Court lets stand California ruling holding lead paint makers liable for $400-million cleanup

[Eugene]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a defeat to business groups in a closely watched California case, rejecting appeals of a ruling that requires former makers of lead paint to pay $400 million or more to clean up old homes.

Business lawyers said they fear the decision will give a green light to other suits seeking to hold manufacturers liable for damage inflicted on the public, including the opioid crisis and climate change.

“The decision ... poses an enormous risk to everyone who has ever done business in California, as it opens the door to potentially unbounded suits targeting manufacturers of products sold decades ago,” wrote former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement in appeal on behalf of ConAgra Grocery Products. The food company was held liable because it had acquired a firm that once sold lead paint.

The justices had considered the appeals in the lead paint cases in late September and again last Friday, the first weekly conferences to include Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It takes a vote of four justices to hear an appeal. On Monday, the court issued a brief order saying it would not hear ConAgra vs. California or Sherwin-Williams vs. California.

-snip-

By DAVID G. SAVAGE
OCT 15, 2018 | 12:45 PM
| WASHINGTON


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-grants-20181015-story.html

[dbackjon]

1. If you knowingly sell toxic products, then you should be liable

If you knowingly push toxic products beyond their intended use, you should be liable.

[getagrip_already]

2. which sc? scotus or csc??

It's not at all clear from the article which court rejected the appeals, or which justices voted, or how.

If it was scotus, did kav participate? It would seem these arguments would have preceded him and it would have been a 4/4 vote, meaning no review.

So whats the story here?

[hedda_foil]

4. The U.S. Court.

The justices had considered the appeals in the lead paint cases in late September and again last Friday, the first weekly conferences to include Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It takes a vote of four justices to hear an appeal. On Monday, the court issued a brief order saying it would not hear ConAgra vs. California or Sherwin-Williams vs. California.

[getagrip_already]

5. thanks, do we have a vote by justice available?

I'd like to know who voted which way.....

[Polybius]

6. I'm trying to find that out too

It takes at least four justices to hear an appeal, and they passed. So between zero and three. I'm searching now, I'll edit it if I find anything...

[Calista241]

8. Usually the results of conference votes are not recorded and / or announced.

Occasionally, if a particular Justice feels strongly enough about it, they will read a dissent from the bench that laments the court electing to not take up a case. But that only happens rarely.

[quakerboy]

3. Can we just add "for now"

to any ruling the court declines to see right now, particularly if the result is in favor of the US citizen? Once they have taken care of "voting", they won't hesitate to take cases like these so they can reverse them to favor corporate donors.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. SCOTUSblog, Tuesday, October 16th, 2018, round-up

Edith Roberts

Posted Tue, October 16th, 2018 6:54 am

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the justices issued orders from last week’s conference, granting no new cases and taking no action on several high-profile cert petitions. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the justices “rejected appeals from Sherwin-Williams Co. and Conagra Brands Inc., leaving intact a ruling that requires [the companies] to pay more than $400 million for lead-paint remediation in California.” Additional coverage comes from David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, who reports that “{b}usiness lawyers said they fear the decision will give a green light to other suits seeking to hold manufacturers liable for damage inflicted on the public, including the opioid crisis and climate change.”
....

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 16, 2018, 6:54 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/tuesday-round-up-450/