Judge: no new trial for lead paint case

Girard, Lisa
March 2007
Home Channel News;3/19/2007, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p3
The article focuses on the denial by a Rhode Island Superior Court judge to a motion put forwarded by three companies including NL Industries Inc., Sherwin-Williams Co., and Millenium Holdings Group Inc. for a new trial. It is noted that the companies were held responsible by a jury for creating public nuisance because of lead paint buildings of Rhode Island. Judge Michael Silverstone rejected the plea of the companies saying the state presented enough evidence to support the jury's verdict.


Related Articles

  • Paint Makers Ask for Mistrial. Miller, Julie // InsideCounsel;Jun2006, Vol. 16 Issue 175, p86 

    Focuses on a request from paint makers Sherwin-Williams Co., Millennium Holdings LLC and NL Industries Inc. for a Rhode Island judge to order a mistrial in case, that found former paint manufacturers liable for creating public nuisance. Lawsuit filed by the state against manufacturers in 2002;...

  • COURT SCRAPS KEY LEAD-PAINT VERDICT. Singer-Vine, Jeremy; Pereira, Joseph // Rachel's Democracy & Health News;7/3/2008, Issue 966, p1 

    The article reports on the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court to overturn a landmark verdict against three former manufacturers of lead paint including NL Industries Inc., Sherwin-Williams Co., and Millennium Holdings LLC. It states that the decision comes as the Congress and lawmakers...

  • Paintmakers in Rhode Island Lead Paint Suit Ask for Retrial. Walsh, Kerri // Chemical Week;4/26/2006, Vol. 168 Issue 14, p9 

    The article focuses on the arguments raised by NL Industries, Millennium Holdings, and Sherwin-Williams against the verdict of the a Rhode Island jury regarding the companies' use of lead-based paint. According to the paintmakers, the state failed to show they made the lead paint found in Rhode...

  • No punitive damages in lead paint case.  // Chemical Market Reporter;3/6/2006, Vol. 269 Issue 9, p4 

    The article reports the developments of the case filed against Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc., and Millennium Holdings LLC for creating a public nuisance in Rhode Island. The companies were found liable and will have to pay for the cleanup of contaminated paint that would cost 3...

  • Jury Rules in Favor of Rhode Island in Lead-Paint Lawsuit.  // JCT CoatingsTech;Apr2006, Vol. 3 Issue 4, p18 

    The article reports on the decision of the jury in the case, State of Rhode Island versus Lead Industries Association et al, given on February 22, 2006. The jury decided that paint manufacturers Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and Millennium Holdings LLC are liable for causing a public...

  • Rhode Island Lead Paint Trial Postponed. Sissell, Kara // Chemical Week;3/10/2004, Vol. 166 Issue 8, p8 

    Reports that Rhode Island has postponed a landmark lead-based paint liability retrial against American Cyanamid, Atlantic Richfield, ConAgra Grocery Products, NL Industries, SCM Chemicals and Sherwin-Williams until April 2005. Reason for the postponement of the trial; Aims of the second and...

  • Settlement in the mix for ABC dispensing. Baird, Kristen // Crain's Cleveland Business;04/28/97, Vol. 18 Issue 17, p2 

    Reports on ABC Dispensing Technologies Incorporated of Akron settlement of a $7.8 million lawsuit filed by Sherwin-Williams Company on April 4, 1997. Reason for the suit; Terms of the settlement; Comments form Charles Stimac Jr., chief executive of ABC Dispensing; Information on filings for...

  • Right ruling.  // Crain's Cleveland Business;7/7/2008, Vol. 29 Issue 27, p8 

    The article discusses a court case in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned a 2-year-old verdict against Sherwin-Williams Co. and two other paintmakers that held the three companies liable for cleaning up lead paint contamination in homes across Rhode Island. Rhode Island's high court...

  • A brush with familiarity. CLARK, KEN // Home Channel News;Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p34 

    The article reports on the legal battle between Sherwin-Williams Co. and Wooster Brush Co. over infringement case to the trademark of brush products which was filed at the Federal Court in Northern District of Ohio.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics