Carl Tobias

If Judge Balkman rules in favor of Oklahoma and awards the damages that The State seeks, the case will be historic as the most substantial verdict in this type of litigation, it will also be important because it could be the first case to recognize the nuisance theory in the opioid context.

It's always important when it's the first trial of this sort, it could provide a road map for other states in pursuing relief from the companies they want to hold responsible.

This is an interesting twist on the idea of public nuisance. by Carl Tobias

This is an interesting twist on the idea of public nuisance.

It sounds to me like the judge is leaning toward the House and favoring a broad claim to investigate and conduct oversight generally and Trump's business dealings specifically, scholars and courts have said Congress has broad oversight authority and Trump's apparent use of his office to profit is a legitimate focus of inquiry.

It provides a roadmap for all those other cases, it's a bellwether, there may be other cases like this.

He is looking like a repeat offender and a bad actor, the SEC is taking action because it has a responsibility to protect the interests of consumers, investors and the public.

I don't have the impression that Parnell set out to kill people, he just ran his business in a way that caused a lot of injury and some deaths. The sentence was appropriate and maybe it should have been stiffer.

Our request is not a selfish request; we only ask that you assign any monies to aid families who have suffered or are suffering from food borne illnesses. i don't have the impression that Parnell set out to kill people.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruling directly conflicts with the federal district court opinion in ways that have not happened in other states where district judges have struck down bans.

He is asserting something that the order does not say on its face, he may be correct, but you sure cannot tell what he says from the order's wording.