An enormous ruling came out of the Rhode Island Supreme Court this week, protecting manufacturers of lead paint from liability for creating a “public nuisance.” The Wall Street Journal praised the ruling in a lead editorial(subscription required). Beginning with the headline, “Another bogus legal theory gets the boot,” the WSJ editorial goes on to say “…the state Supreme Court stopped cold an attempt to turn lead paint into the next tobacco or asbestos." The ruling capped nine years and two jury trials and reversed a verdict that some estimated would have cost paint companies $2 billion.

Now for the Texas connection: a law review article on such public nuisance litigation co-authored by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP partners Richard O. Faulk and John S. Gray had an enormous effect on the court’s ruling. You won’t find Alchemy in the Courtroom? The Transmutation of Public Nuisance Litigation and the Michigan State Law Review on the news rack at Barnes & Noble, but the Supreme Court justices were obviously very familiar with it. The justices referenced the paper on four different occasions in their ruling. Faulk, who chairs Gardere's Litigation Department, calls the ruling a conclusive defeat for the expansion of public nuisance torts that will likely influence a wide range of other industries. "Advocates pursuing public nuisance lawsuits in other contexts, such as climate change, should take special notice of the court's rejection of an activist approach," he says.