Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation

Lawyers pitch potential public nuisance lawsuits to government officials and others hoping to be hired on a contingency fee basis.

The Problem

Lawyers have expanded public nuisance legal theory such that merely selling an everyday product can create virtually unlimited liability, and they sue companies for allegedly causing various societal harms. Traditional public nuisances include a person’s use of land in a manner that creates local disturbances. Today’s public nuisance lawsuits have evolved far from the legal theory’s original intent, and now include: COVID-19, opioids, climate change, environmental and plastic cleanups, and e-cigarettes and vaping. 

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports implementation of sunshine laws with regard to state and local governments’ hiring of outside contingency-fee attorneys as well as legislation that requires public nuisance lawsuits to be grounded in disputes over real property.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation

No related legislation or reform items found for this issue.



Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation

State Tort Laws Negatively Impacting Economies Outlined for DOJ in ATRA Letter

Today, the American Tort Reform Association provided the Department of Jus...

ATRA Submits Comments to DOE on Draft Report by Climate Working Group

Today, the American Tort Reform Association submitted comments to the U.S....

Montana Emerges As National Tort Reform Leader in ATRA’s 2025 “Legislative HeatCheck”

Today, the American Tort Reform Association named Montana a 2025 “Tort Ref...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Dupont de Nemours and Company C-8 Litigation
(6th Cir., filed June 20, 2016): Arguing that the court improperly blended specific and general causation and that there is a vital distinction betwee...
6th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby No. 15-513
(U.S., filed August 8, 2016): Arguing that the blatant violation of the “seal” requirement by relator in a false claims case should result in a dismis...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Robinson v. Pfizer
(8th. Cir., filed September 12, 2016): Arguing that expansive venue laws has led to venue shopping and abuses in Missouri.  The Court must reign in th...
8th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Cerveny v. Aventis
(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state...
10th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite
(Miss., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that under MS statute, evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of his seatbelt is admissible to refute a plaintiff...
Mississippi
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Walker v. Ford
(Col., filed September 27, 2016): Arguing that the“risk-benefit” test for strict product liability incorporates the “consumer expectation” test, such ...
Colorado
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.