Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Coverage of the R.I. Supreme Court Lead Paint Hearing

Pretty good coverage all the way around, which is to say, both sides are included and the plaintiffs -- the three lead-paint manufacturers -- had their arguments represented fairly. From what little we were able to watch, a good exploration of the legal issues by the justices.

And again, we commend the coverage by Jane Genova at Law & More. This post seemed to hit the mark, including the observation:
I thought I was hearing wrong when one the of Justices cut Motley Rice attorney Fidelma Fitzpatrick short when she was starting her usual rant about lead paint is bad. I looked over to the man sitting next to me. He was bug-eyed. So, we both hadn't heard wrong. it was going to get a lot more intense.

The smart four men they are - one justice recused - they were going to find a narrow passageway through the public nuisance and contingency messes through questions of law. That's what they wanted. The attorneys representing the defendants Sherwin-Williams, Millennium Holdings and NL Industries and acquitted Atlantic Richfield stuck to the points of law. The plaintiff representatives did not. They came prepared with stylized rhetoric and kept to the script.

The court has archived the hearing, which you can watch it here.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.