Plaintiff DeWayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper who says Roundup weed killer caused his cancer, leaves a courtroom in San Francisco. AP Photo: Paul Elias, File
In the first oral arguments over a Roundup verdict, a California appeals court raised numerous questions about Monsanto's defense of federal preemption but appeared hesitant to retain the $39 million in compensatory damages within the $289 million jury award.
June 02, 2020 at 04:17 PM
1 minute read
staff reporter
A California appeals court reviewing a $289 million Roundup verdict raised numerous questions about federal preemption but appeared hesitant to retain the $39 million in compensatory damages.
In arguments Tuesday, a panel of the First District Court of Appeal probed lawyers on whether federal preemption could apply to claims of both failure to warn and design defect, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 holding in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences.
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.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
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
