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, July 31, 2015

Gun Control "Study" Misses the Mark Badly on Lawful Self-Defense

Likely as a response to the growing number of American’s who have come to realize that having a ...

News  

Friday, July 31, 2015

Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat

Anti-gun doctors may need to get their own blood pressure checked after the U.S. Court of Appeals for ...

News  

Friday, July 31, 2015

Los Angeles City Council Targets Law-Abiding With Magazine Ban

Back in 2013, the city of Los Angeles’s city council proposed an ordinance banning the possession of magazines ...

Friday, July 31, 2015

Bill Seeks to Choke Off Anti-Gun "Choke Point"

Only July 30, The House Financial Services Committee marked up and passed out of committee H.R. 766, the ...

News  

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

President’s Column: If Gun Restrictions Were Applied To Technology, They Would Not Compute

What if computer owners were the object of Bloomberg’s lies? What would be the public reaction if the ...

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, July 31, 2015

Famed Law Professor, Defense Attorney Latest to Suggest Second Amendment Needs to Go

The legal profession is full of blowhards, egomaniacs, hypocrites, and elitists, but even so, rarely are all those ...

News  

Friday, July 24, 2015

Gun Control Group Would Endanger Military by Politicizing Firearm Procurement Process

As if misguided anti-gun policies that leave our fighting men and women defenseless stateside weren’t enough, some gun ...

News  

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

NRA Thanks Alabama Attorney General for Defending Gun Rights

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today commended Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange for upholding the Second Amendment rights of Alabamans. After reviewing and investigating complaints from citizens about state and local ...

Thursday, July 30, 2015

California: City of Los Angeles’ Magazine Confiscation Ordinance Heading to Mayor’s Office

Unfortunately, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt the amended, yet still useless, ...

News  

Friday, July 31, 2015

When Bureaucrats Make “Sport” of Fundamental Liberties, Congress Must Act

In May, I discussed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ varying interpretations of the phrase “sporting ...

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.