NRA Explore
APPEARS IN News

Taxpayer Funded Reckless Lawsuits Against The Firearms Industry

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Taxpayer Funded Reckless Lawsuits
Against The Firearms Industry

** = CASE CLOSED

PLAINTIFFS

City of New Orleans

Date, Court Case #

10/30/98 Louisiana Supreme Court 2000-CA-1132

DEFENDANTS

15 manufacturers and distributors, 5 dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Defective design, negligent distribution

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- passed 4/99

CASE STATUS

State Supreme Court reversed lower court decision 4/3/01 and DISMISSED all claims. U.S. Supreme Court DENIED CERT. on 10/9/01. **


PLAINTIFFS

City of Chicago & Cook County Illinois

Date, Court Case#

11/12/98 amended 4/7/99, IL App. Ct. 1st Judicial District 00-3541

DEFENDANTS

22 manufacturers and distributors, 12 dealers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

CONSOLIDATED & DISMISSED at trial. Appealed to Illinois 1st Dist. App. court. Argument. heard 12/2001. Public nuisance claim allowed to proceed 11/4/02. IL Sup. Ct. granted appeal on 4/8/03. Argument 9/10/03. DISMISSED 11/18/04. **


PLAINTIFFS

State of Illinois

Date, Court Case#

11/14/00 Cir. Ct. Cook County 00-CH-016394

DEFENDANTS

4 manufacturers, 8 distributors

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Public nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Motion to dismiss filed on 1/29/01. Argument 1/10/02. DISMISSED. **


PLAINTIFFS

Miami-Dade County, FL

Date, Court Case#

1/27/99 FL Supreme Ct. SC-01861

DEFENDANTS

26 manufacturers and distributors, 3 associations, 2 dealers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Defective design, deceptive advertising, negligent distribution

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- SB 412 signed by Gov. Bush 5/1/01

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED at trial 12/13/99, DISMISSED at Appellate Court 2/14/01, appealed to State Supreme Court. Grant of cert denied 10/24/01. **


PLAINTIFFS

Bridgeport, CT

Date, Court Case#

1/27/99 amended 4/22/99 CT Supreme Court SC-16465

DEFENDANTS

21 manufacturers and distributors, 12 dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, conspiracy, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED at trial 12/10/99, appealed 12/29/99, transferred to CT. Sup. Ct. AFFIRMED on 10/9/01 **

PLAINTIFFS

Atlanta, GA

Date, Court Case#

2/5/99 Court of Appeals, GA A01A2521

DEFENDANTS

14 manufacturers and distributors, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Defective & negligent design, conspiracy, negligent distribution

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- passed 2/99

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED 2/13/02 by Ct. of Appeals citing lawsuit preemption statute. No appeal to GA Sup. Court filed **


PLAINTIFFS

Cleveland, OH

Date, Court Case#

4/8/99 US Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Of OH 1:99-CK-1134

DEFENDANTS

17 manufacturers and distributors, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Defective design, nuisance, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Motion to dismiss DENIED 3/14/00. DISMISSED on 1/21/05 however plaintiffs may re-file before 1/23/06.


PLAINTIFFS

Detroit, MI (consolidated with Wayne County)

Date, Court Case#

4/26/99 MI Ct. of Appeals

DEFENDANTS

24 manufacturers and distributors, 11 dealers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- passed 6/2000 -- On 3/30/01 the trial court ruled it unconstitutional but was overturned by appeals court 8/7/03.

CASE STATUS

Trial Ct. DISMISSED negligence but DENIED nuisance & lawsuit preemption on 3/23/01 as unconstitutional as applied. Appeals Ct. argument heard 11/19/02. DISMISSED on all counts finding preemption valid and applicable 8/7/03. **


PLAINTIFFS

Wayne County, MI
(consolidated with Detroit)

Date, Court Case#

4/26/99 MI Ct. of Appeals

DEFENDANTS

24 manufacturers and distributors, 11 dealers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- passed 6/2000 -- On 3/30/01 the trial court ruled it unconstitutional but was overturned by appeals court 8/7/03.

CASE STATUS

Trial Ct. DISMISSED negligence but DENIED nuisance & lawsuit preemption on 3/23/01 as unconstitutional as applied. Appeals Ct. argument heard 11/19/02. DISMISSED on all counts finding preemption valid and applicable 8/7/03. **


PLAINTIFFS

Cincinnati, OH

Date, Court Case#

4/28/99 Supreme Ct., OH 00-1705

DEFENDANTS

16 manufacturers and distributors, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED, at trial, AFFIRMED by Court of Appeals. A split OH Sup. Ct. reinstated case 6/12/02. Back in trial court. Trade Assoc.'s dismissed from suit on 11/15/02. City dropped suit on 4/30/03. **



PLAINTIFFS

St. Louis, MO

Date, Court Case#

4/30/99 City of St. Louis Circuit Ct. 992-01209

DEFENDANTS

25 manufacturers and distributors, 2 dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, conspiracy, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED 10/15/03. Appealed 11/25/03. DISMISSAL affirmed on 7/27/04 by Ct. of App. Plaintiffs on 9/20/04 filed appeal w/MO Sup. Ct. DENIED on 10/26/04. **


PLAINTIFFS

CITIES OF NORTH CA Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, East Palo Alto, San Francisco, Alameda County, San Mateo County

Date, Court Case#

5/25/99 Case coordinated with cities below. Superior Court, San Diego.
JCCP # 4095

DEFENDANTS

28 manufacturers, 6 distributors and dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, nuisance, defective design, deceptive advertising, fraudulent business practices

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO -- Product liability protection at CA. CIV. CODE § 1714.4 was repealed 9/25/02

CASE STATUS

Summary judgment 1/3/03. DISMISSED in part on 3/7/03. Appeal filed 6/9/03. Settlement by lesser non-dismissed defendants while appeal pending. Def's reply brief filed 5/04. Oral argument heard 12/2/04. On 2/10/05 the dismissal was affirmed. **


PLAINTIFFS

CITIES OF SOUTH CA Los Angeles, Compton, West Hollywood, Inglewood

Date, Court Case#

5/25/99 Case coordinated with cities above. Superior Court, San Diego.
JCCP # 4095

DEFENDANTS

39 manufacturers, 5 distributors, 5 dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, nuisance, defective design, deceptive advertising, fraudulent business practices

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO -- Product liability protection at CA. CIV. CODE § 1714.4 was repealed 9/25/02

CASE STATUS

Summary judgment 1/3/03. DISMISSED in part on 3/7/03. Appeal filed 6/9/03. Settlement by lesser non-dismissed defendants while appeal pending. Def's reply brief filed 5/04. Oral argument heard 12/2/04. On 2/10/05 the dismissal was affirmed. **


PLAINTIFFS

County of Los Angeles, CA

Date, Court Case#

8/6/99 Case coordinated with cities above. JCCP # 4095

DEFENDANTS

28 manufacturers, 6 distributors and dealers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, nuisance, defective design, deceptive advertising, fraudulent business practices

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO -- Product liability protection at CA. CIV. CODE § 1714.4 was repealed 9/25/02

CASE STATUS

Summary judgment 1/3/03. DISMISSED in part on 3/7/03. Appeal filed 6/9/03. Settlement by lesser non-dismissed defendants while appeal pending. Def's reply brief filed 5/04. Oral argument heard 12/2/04. On 2/10/05 the dismissal was affirmed. **




PLAINTIFFS

Camden Co., NJ

Date, Court Case#

6/2/99US Dist. Ct, Dist. Of New Jersey 99-CV-2518

DEFENDANTS

22 manufacturers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, assault and/or battery, economic interference

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

U.S. District Ct. DISMISSED 12/5/00, appealed to U.S. 3rd Cir. Ct. App. 1/3/01. Argument heard 9/4/01. DISMISSED 11/16/01. No appeal to U.S. Sup. Court. **


PLAINTIFFS

Boston, MA

Date, Court Case#

6/3/99 Superior Court, Suffolk County 99-2590

DEFENDANTS

29 manufacturers and distributors, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Motion to dismiss DENIED 7/13/00, interlocutory appeal denied 9/19/00, the 3 trade associations filed a separate motion dismiss for lack of jurisdiction - DENIED 11/20/00. Discovery completed 1/19/02. Trial was scheduled for 9/24/02. The city decided to drop its suit 3/27/02 **


PLAINTIFFS

City of Newark, NJ

Date, Court Case#

6/9/99 Superior Ct. of NJ, Essex County ESX-L-6059-99

DEFENDANTS

28 manufacturers, 2 distributors, 2 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED partially and DENIED dismissal of negligent marketing & distribution claim 12/11/01. Appealed. On 3/11/03 AFFIRMED. DISMISSED 12/4/03. DISMISSED with prejudice on 3/10/04. **


PLAINTIFFS

City of Camden, NJ

Date, Court Case#

6/21/99 Superior Ct. of NJ, Camden County CAM-4510-99

DEFENDANTS

19 manufacturers and 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, unjust enrichment

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Oral argument on a motion to dismiss heard 2/22/01. DISMISSED without prejudice 7/7/03. Jennings and Bryco filed for bankruptcy. **


PLAINTIFFS

City of Gary, IN

Date, Court Case#

8/27/99 Lake Superior Ct. 45-D05-0005-CT-243

DEFENDANTS

21 manufacturers & distributors, 3 assoc., 5 dealers

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution & marketing, negligence, nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES- Effective 4/18/2001

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED 1/23/01. 1st amended complaint DISMISSED 3/13/01. Appealed on 4/13/01. On 9/20/02 App. Ct. upheld dismissal of all but 3 dealer defendants. Indiana Sup. Ct. reinstated case on 12/23/03. Now in discovery. 1 dealer reportedly settled in May 2005.


PLAINTIFFS

City of Wilmington, DE

Date, Court Case#

9/29/99 Del. Superior Ct., New Castle County 99-C-09-283

DEFENDANTS

12 manufacturers, 3 associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, marketing, design, warnings, nuisance, fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED by Superior Court. A decision to not file an appeal was made on 12/26/02. **


PLAINTIFFS

Wash., D.C.

Date, Court Case#

1/20/00 DC Superior Ct., Civ. Div. 00-000428

DEFENDANTS

25 manufacturers, 4 distributors

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, strict liability, public nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Oral argument 4/13/01. 12/16/02 case DISMISSED. On 4/29/04 DC Ct. of App. upheld part and reversed on "absolute" liability claims. On 5/14/04 both parties petitioned for rehearing. It was granted 10/19/04. En banc hearing held 1/11/05. On 4/21/05 DC Ct. of App. held that individuals could sue under the D.C. assault weapon strict liability law. Def's appealed to US Sup. Ct. on 7/20/05. Cert. was denied on 10/3/05.


PLAINTIFFS

City of Philadelphia

Date, Court Case#

4/11/00 Ct. of Common Pleas, Phila County 00-1442

DEFENDANTS

14 manufacturers and distributors

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, public nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

YES -- passed 12/99

CASE STATUS

U.S. Dist. Ct. DISMISSED 12/20/00, appealed to U.S. 3rd Cir. Ct. of Appeals. AFFIRMED 1/11/02. City did not appeal further. **


PLAINTIFFS

City of New York

Date, Court Case#

5/20/00 US Dist. Ct., ED NY 1:00-CV-3641

DEFENDANTS

24 manufacturers and distributors, 3 trade associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, public nuisance, deceptive advertising

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing at this time. Stay was lifted on 1/13/04 and the city was allowed to amend its complaint. A writ of mandamus to recuse Judge Weinstein was denied on 5/21/04. Discovery continues. Trial is set for 11/27/05.


PLAINTIFFS

State of New York

Date, Court Case#

6/26/00 NY Superior Ct. NY County 402586/00

DEFENDANTS

25 manufacturers and distributors

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Negligent distribution, public nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

DISMISSED 8/10/01 by trial court. DISMISSED again by Appeals Court 6/24/03. On 7/28/03 the A.G. filed another appeal. DISMISSED 10/21/03 by NY Court of Appeals. **



PLAINTIFFS

Jersey City v. Smith & Wesson et al

Date, Court Case#

3/28/02 Sup. Ct. Of NJ, Hudson County.

DEFENDANTS

12 manufacturers, 2 dealers, 3 trade associations

ALLEGED CLAIMS

Public nuisance

LAWSUIT PREEMPTION

NO

CASE STATUS

Complaint filed on 3/28/02. A motion to dismiss was not filed. Plaintiff's voluntarily DISMISSED case on 11/7/03. **


IN THIS ARTICLE
Reckless Lawsuits
TRENDING NOW

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban

On Friday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) released a draft of a proposed rulemaking that would supposedly bring the agency into compliance with what it claims is its responsibility to report prohibited persons to the ...

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Say What? Gun Control Advocates Try to Change the Language of Crime

As a cabinet level official in the Obama administration, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both reflected and informed the regime’s values and tactics, some of which she has carried forward into her own campaign ...

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Aging Rocker to College Students: You’re Too Drunk, Violent, and Stupid for Your Rights

Throughout its history, rock-n-roll music has provided youth who are fed up with being lectured and condescended to by out-of-touch or hypocritical elders a voice to respond and to advocate for their own generation. Athens, ...

Friday, April 29, 2016

Michigan: Important Firearm Preemption Legislation Will Likely Receive Committee Vote Next Week

Next Wednesday, May 4, the House Local Government Committee is tentatively scheduled to consider and vote on House Bill 4795, as substituted.  HB 4795, sponsored by Chairman Lee Chatfield (R-District 107), is important legislation aimed ...

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office

In what has become as reliable as clockwork, with the passing of another week comes another Hillary Clinton attack on gun owners. This time, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination explained to supporters her ...

Friday, April 29, 2016

Louisiana: House Committee to Vote Tuesday on Dangerous Bill Gutting Louisiana’s Firearms Preemption Law

Imagine the City of New Orleans having the statutory authority to pass any law they wanted governing the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms and ammunition.

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Hollywood Ramps up Anti-gun Campaign

Gun control advocates and Hollywood have long been allied in an effort to propagandize the public against firearm ownership. However, as detailed in an April 27 piece in entertainment industry trade publication Variety, anti-gun groups ...

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

NRA Statement on President Obama's Latest Gun Control

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) issued the following statements on President Obama’s latest gun control push.

News  

Friday, April 29, 2016

Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity

We’ve been reporting on Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and her anti-gun mentality for months. She has been especially focused on the alleged immunity gun manufacturers have under federal law, the Protection in Lawful Commerce ...

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Connecticut: Gun Surrender Bill Moving through the General Assembly

Yesterday, April 27, House Bill 5054 passed the House of Representatives with a 104-42 vote.  HB 5054 is a large omnibus bill which threatens your Right to Keep and Bear Arms as well as your Fifth Amendment right to ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.