Okie SupCt sets aside huge opioid verdict

M

mb227

de Plorable
Looks like Bubba's home State may have gotten one correct regarding over-reach...I have not read the Opinion, but it seems the $453M verdict came about as a result of judicial over-reach on the question of public nuisance.

Given the amount at stake, I am sure it will still kick around a few other appellate courts...
 
mb227 said:
So you don't agree that the law should be properly applied?

I miss the days when proper application of law mattered, even if you didn't like what got produced as the outcome of a case.
Click to expand...

I believe it should be applied to everyone. I also believe the laws are stilted in favor of the rich and powerful, "justice" can be purchased with a good set of lawyers and those with lots of money (or power in our Government) aren't held to the same standards that those without $$/power are. It's the reason that Hillary Clinton can use a non-government email where had a low level military person in the Pentagon done the same the latter would be in Leavenworth. It's why Donald Trump and his ilk could ignore ethics laws while some bureaucrat in some 3-letter agency would get canned immediately for violation of the same ethics laws. It's the difference between a AIG executive that knew CDM's were risky yet still approved their insurance then received significant bonuses to clean up the mess they participated in creating whereas any individual contributor would have been fired/blacklisted and maybe gone to jail for similar activity. It's the reason that some junkie on the street using a Public Defender after being caught with a dimebag will likely see more time in jail than the White Collar defendent.

In this case, the Sackler's and their company, Purdue Pharma understated the addiction capacity of OxyContin. In fact, they initially said there was NO addiction capacity. They proceeded to profit billions and continued to produce more and more even though they very likely knew it was now part of the illegal drug trade. Still, they took in billions in profit then, like J&J with the Asbestos judgement, they moved money around to protect their wealth from litigation and accountability for their role in what became a national health epidemic.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I wasn't versed in this case and appreciate the link. Next time LEAD with that, please. It seems appropriate that J&J shouldn't be held liable for products that didn't manufacture/sell but only ones they did.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I am not where I can easily include a link...but silly me for thinking everyone would have looked at the basic info before spouting off. I gave more than enough to have led someone to see it in whatever social media platform they utilized since the ruling REALLY set certain demographics off since the law does not seem to matter to some people.

I was glad to see the overturn come from Bubba's stomping grounds since it at least serves as a reminder that there is SOME functioning law and common sense remaining in that State...

Where they stole it from...topic for another day LOL!
 
So I waited to read the actual court opinion, and despite my general leaning in favor of verdicts being upheld, I can't get too upset with this one. They were trying to apply the public nuisance doctrine, and it simply doesn't fit here. It's not intended to go after a company that sells a legal product that has a lot of upside for the overwhelming majority of its users for the damage caused by the illegal misuse of that product. If this kind of litigation is allowed to go forward, basically nobody will be able to make or sell opioids for any purpose. In fact, nobody would be able to sell anything that could possibly be misused to the public's detriment regardless of the upside of the product.

Let's put it this way. There are far more egregious denials of civil justice to get mad about than this.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's the reason that some junkie on the street using a Public Defender after being caught with a dimebag will likely see more time in jail than the White Collar defendent.
Click to expand...

Oops, have to take exception here SH. While I agree with the $$ and it’s influence on our judicial system, I happen to know a public defender (actually the group) that do exceptionally well in the defense of their poor defendants. Every day.
 
nashhorn said:
Oops, have to take exception here SH. While I agree with the $$ and it’s influence on our judicial system, I happen to know a public defender (actually the group) that do exceptionally well in the defense of their poor defendants. Every day.
Click to expand...

Nash, anecdotally you'll find plenty of good public defenders. However, the $800/hr guys can charge that for a reason. They're good enough to overcome the massive financial, political, and legal advantages prosecutors have - mainly by exploiting how relatively lazy and sloppy your average prosecutor is. Remember that a prosecutor is a government employee who gets paid even if he's mediocre. That doesn't mean none are any good, but many aren't that great. They have the easiest job of any trial lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Deez, I know you know my connection here so no sense hiding my prejudice. I will say the DA against whom daughter’s court battles generally involve is one smart - actually more descriptive would be smarta$$ - antagonist. The few times I’ve watched her operate every time afterwards I’ve told her there is no chance after hearing the Judge’s questions and comments to witnesses’ testimonies on the stand, only to be amazed at favorable rulings by Judge and/or jury. Quite proud as you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top