Three companies that sold lead-based paint and were sued in a landmark case cannot recover money they spent defending themselves in the lawsuit, a judge ruled Tuesday. Rhode Island in 2006 won a jury verdict that could have forced the companies to spend billions removing lead paint from homes and buildings. After the state Supreme Court threw out the verdict in 2008, the companies asked that the state reimburse them for legal expenses -- but Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein denied that request Tuesday.
May 27, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Three companies that sold lead-based paint and were sued by the state in a landmark case cannot recover money they spent defending themselves in the lawsuit, a Rhode Island judge ruled Tuesday.
Rhode Island in February 2006 won a jury verdict that could have forced the three companies, including the Cleveland-based Sherwin-Williams Co., to spend billions of dollars removing lead paint from homes and buildings in the state.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
