A year ago, a Madison County judge in the meritless atrazine litigation unsealed PR documents that showed, heaven forfend, that the defendants were exercising their First Amendment rights to defend themselves against false accusations. Now there's evidence that, surprise, surprise, the plaintiffs are doing the same thing they pearl-clutched about when the defendants did it, though one doubts the judge will let defendants conduct discovery on the Center for Media and Democracy or who leaked documents to them. But as Ed Murnane and Tiger Joyce ask, "why would Madison County judges ignore overwhelming science and favor the plaintiffs when so many of the county's tax-paying residents earn their livelihoods in conventional agriculture?"
PR efforts in atrazine litigation
- What the Gosnell case tells us about medical malpractice efficacy
- Standard Fire v. Knowles
- Accutane recusal motion update
- More on Higbee recusal motion in Accutane litigation
- The Philadelphia Story
- HRT punitive damages before Pennsylvania Supreme Court
- ILR survey of state litigation environments
- Cert grant in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
- $48 million jackpot justice asbestos award for 86-year-old
- Judge orders end to trial reservation system in Madison County asbestos docket
- More on 2006 Louisiana environmental law's jackpot justice
- "Missouri lawyers weigh in on class action concerns"
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
- Around the web, December 15