News/Columns

SCOTUS Ruling Instantly Touches Off Mistrial in Missouri Talc Case

, The National Law Journal

   | 4 Comments

In a dramatic end to a pivotal trial over Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, a Missouri judge has granted a mistrial in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Monday in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California.

This premium content is reserved for National Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • Darren McKinney, ATRA

    . . .ranking St. Louis

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    (It‘s apparently not a glitch but a new 2,000-word character limit. So be it. My comment continues where it was cut off.) . . . ranking St. Louis

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    (A technical glitch of some sort cut short my previously posted comment. Here‘s a second try.) Mr. Meadows is blowing smoke. There‘s no amount of additional discovery or depositions that can overcome Justice Alito‘s rather straightforward decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Non-Missouri residents will have to file their scientifically groundless talc claims in their home states or where the defendants are incorporated or headquartered. BTW, if Mr. Meadows thought he could have won his clients‘ cases in their home states or the defendants‘ home states, he‘d have filed them there to begin with. But he instead chose then-Daubertless St. Louis, where relatively low-cost TV advertising allowed the plaintiffs‘ bar to saturate the airwaves with willfully misleading propaganda designed to precondition jury pools. The racket seemed to work pretty well for a while, but ATRA blew the whistle, ranking St. Louis

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    Mr. Meadows is blowing smoke. There‘s no amount of additional discovery or depositions that can overcome Justice Alito‘s rather straightforward decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Non-Missouri residents will have to file their scientifically groundless talc claims in their home states or where the defendants are incorporated or headquartered. BTW, if he thought he could win those cases in those jurisdictions, he‘d have filed them there to begin with. But he chose then-Daubertless St. Louis, where relatively low-cost TV advertising allowed the plaintiffs‘ bar to saturate the airwaves with willfully misleading propaganda designed to precondition jury pools. The racket seemed to work pretty well for a while, but ATRA blew the whistle, ranking St. Louis

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202790568692

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.