News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling. Parent comment

Re:Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling by henryfjordan on Monday August 26, 2019 @07:05PM (#20804614)
This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states.

It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though.

EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling by egdod on Monday August 26, 2019 @09:47PM (#20805600)
> There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.

I've never heard of someone making this argument successfully.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling by staticautomatic on Monday August 26, 2019 @07:13PM (#20804661)
The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling by henryfjordan on Monday August 26, 2019 @07:20PM (#20804705)
"precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling by staticautomatic on Monday August 26, 2019 @07:32PM (#20804779)
This particular case has not set such a precedent.
[ Parent | on HN ]