Columbia law school



Download 203.63 Kb.
Page1/39
Date13.08.2021
Size203.63 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   39

100297
Send to: FAGAN, JEFFREY

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL

435 W 116TH ST

NEW YORK, NY 10027-7201
Time of Request: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:07:54 EST

Client ID/Project Name:

Number of Lines: 923

Job Number: 1861:5353007
Research Information
Service: LEXSEE(R) Feature

Print Request: Current Document: 1

Source: Get by LEXSEE(R)

Search Terms: 2001 R.I. Super. LEXIS 37

LEXSEE 2001 R.I. SUPER. LEXIS 37

Analysis

As of: Jan 08, 2007


STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, by and through SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Attorney General v. LEAD INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC.; AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE O'BRIEN COMPANY; CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS COMPANY; THE GLIDDEN COMPANY; NL INDUSTRIES, INC.; SCM CHEMICALS; THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS
C.A. No. 99-5226
SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE
2001 R.I. Super. LEXIS 37
April 2, 2001, Filed


CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In an action by plaintiff State to recover expenses paid by state for various costs which were allegedly incurred by plaintiff because of defendants' production and distribution of lead, defendants moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12b(6).
OVERVIEW: The Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island, acting for plaintiff State, filed a complaint against several lead pigment manufacturers and their trade association, specifically nine named defendants. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged an extensive history of defendants' conduct consisting of misrepresentations and concealment of evidence regarding the hazards of lead. Defendants, either individually or in joining other defendants, filed motions to dismiss pursuant to R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state any cause of action cognizable under Rhode Island law. The trial court found that defendants' motions to dismiss had to be examined in the context of the powers of the attorney general to redress public wrongs. Further, to adopt the free public services rule and dismiss this action thereby, particularly in the absence of controlling caselaw requiring such a rule, would have ignored existing authority of the attorney general. Finally, the trial court found that the attorney general pled sufficient factual allegations to withstand the defendant's motion to dismiss.
OUTCOME: Defendants' motions to dismiss were denied.

Directory: fagan


Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   39




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page