• Here’s what happened: Attorney and legal commentator John Shu is out with a piece analyzing the expanded role nuisance litigation has taken in recent years.
• Go further: Despite past court rulings that public nuisance laws don’t apply to products, the use of public nuisance claims against energy companies has become appealing for state and local governments and plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking massive payouts and a way to circumvent the legislative process
  
• How we got here: The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to transfer climate nuisance cases to federal courts puts state judges in the driver’s seat in what is clearly a public policy—not legal—debate
  
• In their own words: “Public nuisance law never was intended to be a legislative policy substitute to address societal harms or a replacement for a plaintiff’s inability to plead and prove fraud, deceptive practices, false advertising, or product liability.
  
• What about Texas? It’s clear the issue of inappropriate public nuisance suits isn’t going anywhere. Although the Legislature did not pass a measure to clarify the use of public nuisance lawsuits in Texas in the 88th Legislative Session, we are hopeful they will take quick action to do so in the 89th
  
• TLR Thoughts: The concept of public nuisance has evolved into a sweeping legal tool to litigate various issues and bypass the legislative process. Courts shouldn’t be engaged in shaping public policy—only in evaluating the specifics of each case and applying the law accordingly.

Read the full article here.