When the state initiates litigation and fails to prove it’s case, it should be responsible for reimbursing defense costs. The state tried to make big bucks by suing the plaintiffs and lost. It caused the plaintiffs to incur defense costs to prove the state wrong. The state should pay as should all parties who initiate ligigation and lose. That would cut down on a large number of frivolous suits.
I agree. The greedy state officials took a shot hoping to make a lot of money for the state coffers. Unfortunately, their plain back-fired and they only wounded their prey. Turnaround is fair play. They caused the defendants to spend a lot of money. The court said they were wrong in doing so hence they should pay to play.
Agreed – also, as I recall, the product was perfectly legal at the time it was produced and sold, and the ultimate responsibility for its application and use rests with the landlords who have failed to abate the lead exposures. The solution has been out there for decades, and it’s not the paint companies’ responsibility. So, it was a vast stretch of a legal theory in an attempt to hold an industry retroactively responsible on a collective basis. That’s a gross abuse of public power, and the state should be held financially responsible.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
When the state initiates litigation and fails to prove it’s case, it should be responsible for reimbursing defense costs. The state tried to make big bucks by suing the plaintiffs and lost. It caused the plaintiffs to incur defense costs to prove the state wrong. The state should pay as should all parties who initiate ligigation and lose. That would cut down on a large number of frivolous suits.
I agree. The greedy state officials took a shot hoping to make a lot of money for the state coffers. Unfortunately, their plain back-fired and they only wounded their prey. Turnaround is fair play. They caused the defendants to spend a lot of money. The court said they were wrong in doing so hence they should pay to play.
Agreed – also, as I recall, the product was perfectly legal at the time it was produced and sold, and the ultimate responsibility for its application and use rests with the landlords who have failed to abate the lead exposures. The solution has been out there for decades, and it’s not the paint companies’ responsibility. So, it was a vast stretch of a legal theory in an attempt to hold an industry retroactively responsible on a collective basis. That’s a gross abuse of public power, and the state should be held financially responsible.
The State should pay for all costs associated with this farce of a case. If you can’t pay they don’t play.