Despite the predominant failure of campaigns to use public nuisance law as a surrogate for product liability in areas like guns and lead paint, plaintiffs are finding courts willing to entertain sweeping applications of nuisance doctrine in more conventional environmental-law settings, according to Steven R. Williams and R. Trent Taylor of McGuire Woods and James T. Lynn of duPont, in the NLJ. Taylor also has an article in BNA (PDF) sounding the alarm about a January federal decision in favor of North Carolina in its nuisance suit over Tennessee Valley Authority utility emissions, which he says could foreshadow advances for global-warming litigation -- though Chuck Moellenberg of Jones Day contends that the TVA case does not present as much novelty as all that, at least as to its nuisance-law angle.
A second wind for public nuisance law?
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes & A.E.P. v. Connecticut
- Oral argument in AEP v. Connecticut global warming public nuisance case
- Around the web, February 13
- State-hired contingent fee counsel: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Santa Clara
- Cert grant in American Electric Power v. Connecticut
- Litigation v. Regulation roundtable
- They say lawyers are bad at math, but this is ridiculous
- Around the web, September 1
- " Litigating over the environment makes big bucks for trial lawyers"
- Around the web, August 30
- Obama DOJ opposes carbon regulation-through-litigation
- Copland on climate-change suits
- Elizabeth Warren complains about overdisclosure
- Fourth Circuit slaps down N.C. attorney general's suit against TVA
- California Supreme Court decides Santa Clara v. Superior Court