Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Lawsuit May Proceed

[Renegade]

Sigh...

SCOTUS only sets a precedent when it issues a ruling.

no

Prec·e·dent
noun
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/

1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

they declined cert, that is a precedent. All other cases were dismissed.

Case Law is what occurs when they issue a ruling.

 

[oldag]

no

Prec·e·dent
noun
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/

1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

they declined cert, that is a precedent. All other cases were dismissed.

Case Law is what occurs when they issue a ruling.

You are citing a general definition of precedent, not the form used when referring to courts.

Here is the correct definition:

precedent:

1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis 2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

See also: stare decisis

A refusal to hear the appeal is not an opinion (which also has a different definition in the legal sense as opposed to everyday usage).

I am done trying to educate someone who refuses to learn.

 

[Renegade]

You are citing a general definition of precedent, not the form used when referring to courts.

that is because refusing cert in this instance is a general precedent, not a case law precedent.

As someone said, this precedent will open the floodgates for more lawsuits, now the lawyers see their suits will not be dismissed before trial.

either way this will not be contained to CT, as I originally said before you decided to argue the multiple meanings of the word precedent.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.
I know I (an avowed S&W fanboy) won't buy another S&W product as long as they stay in Connecticut. Connecticut does not deserve any support. If they had a damn bit of sense they would set up shop in Texas.

It may apply just to the state of Connecticut, but only until the next state comes along and does the same. It pretty much sets a precedent that will allow all the states to let individuals sue manufacturers.

The question is, where does it stop? Does it apply only to firearms?

 

[Renegade]

It may apply just to the state of Connecticut, but only until the next state comes along as does the same. It pretty much sets a precedent that will allow all the states let individuals sue manufacturers.

OMG, you used that word!

The question is, where does it stop? Does it apply only to firearms?

Firearms are one of the few industries that have a PLCAA. So it has been applying to other industries since forever. Ask Tobacco industry for example how many times they have been sued.

 

[RSBro]

Unless they are going to open this up to every manufacturer of literally everything, I can see how the suit will proceed but will ultimately fail. Haven't read a ton of it yet, but looking at the amount of alcohol and vehicle-related deaths there are every year and how they dwarf non-suicide gun deaths, not sure how you can turn a blind eye to those and not to firearms, but it's a wild world out there.
As others have said, this is only going to rack up attorney fees for manufacturers and litigants, regardless of how often they 'win'. You're going to have liberal circuit court judges going crazy with all this nonsense.

 

[Wiliamr]

There may be a bit of legal strategy going here. Not having seen the "advertising" the plaintiff is relying on to prove their case, the argument could be that the manufacturer was not engaged in "legal" commerce. I do not know what evidence if any was submitted by Remington to the Supreme Court asking for relief in this instance. I have a sneaking suspicion that the SC declined to hear the case because it is only at state court trial level and Conn. has a state law which the plaintiffs claim prevents unfair trade practices. This law would then have to be interpreted by the SC; which I suspect they would not want to touch.

Allowing the case to proceed in Ct. (without seeing the evidence relied on by the plaintiff) allows a couple things to occur. IF a ruling there goes against the plaintiff, the issue is dead and that would allow a precedent of "res judicata" in future. If it goes against respondent then the case can be appealed up the courts in Conn. and then on to the USSC.
The application of those rulings then would probably allow the respondent attorneys on appeal, to claim the verdict was inconsistent with and in conflict with the Conn. Fair Trade Act and thus improper.

 

[Renegade]

There may be a bit of legal strategy going here. Not having seen the "advertising" the plaintiff is relying on to prove their case, the argument could be that the manufacturer was not engaged in "legal" commerce.

This seems to be their case. This appears to be the verbage of PLCAA they are relying on:

(iii)an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

Not sure what was illegal since the gun was legally purchased. Either way, the gun was stolen, so it is not sure how that is Remington fault.

I am afraid the PLCAA is going to be completely ignored in this case.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I don't see how the illegal marketing applies in this case. The shooter did not purchase the firearm, he stole it.

 

[Glenn B]

I foresee another madhouse frenzy of folks purchasing ARs and other semi-auto rifles should this case look like Remington is going to lose. I base that on the precedent set by former buying frenzies that were based upon things of even less importance.

 

[busykngt]

Looks like a clear cut case of “marketing by proxy”!
(Is there even such a thing?)
—
Adam’s mother bought the rifle. It’s probably safe to assume she deferred to Adam’s choice of weaponry for their mother/son “bonding time” spent at the range with her deranged son.

Can’t help but wonder how Remington’s marketing campaign could be tied to actions of her lunatic son stealing the rifle from her gun safe, killing her and making his way to the school. Twenty year old, “mental” kid, quite literally stuck in his mom’s basement everyday, playing shoot-em-up video games all day long.... oh yeah(!) that’s going to end well...

SCOTUS sidestepped their responsibility (once again). But yeah, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings...

 

[Renegade]

It’s probably safe to assume she deferred to Adam’s choice of weaponry for their mother/son “bonding time” spent at the range with her deranged son.

No it is not safe to assume that. 10 seconds with google will show mother was a long time gun collector, had a decent collection, and bought Bushmaster years prior to the incident. There is zero evidence son had anything to do with any of her purchases.

 

[popper]

Can't find a thing about the actual writing of the court on this case, they usually make a statement about the decision to hear or not. Only comment I see is 'it will be a hard case for the folks to win' but hey lower courts make law all the time, that WILL be precedent.
Like the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, which legally applied ONLY to the specific case at hand! But became 'law of the land'. SCOTUS is now chicken SCOTUS.

 

[busykngt]

Perhaps it’s not “safe” to assume that; but nevertheless “likely” in my opinion. Adam’s influence on his mother’s decision to buy the Bushmaster can never be known with absolute certainty. Assuming she bought the rifle within five or six years prior to the Sandy Hook shooting, that would have put Adam in the 14 to 15 year old range. And certainly it’s not inconceivable a video game playing teenager of that age could have and probably, would have been ragging on his mom to get one of those “scary black rifles”. JMO - YMMV

If I fault her [the mother] for anything, it’s for coddling her son and not getting him the help he needed. And as it turned out, she paid for that decision with her life.

 

[Wiliamr]

Marketing has nothing to do with if the gun was bought legally, it is about the language in advertising. I keep finding reference language along the lines of the company markets the gun to civilians and uses military imagery to do so. Therefore, they say, the company’s sales and marketing materials are deceptive in nature appealing to violent behavior.

 

[easy rider]

I've seen many car commercials showing sports cars racing, does that mean they promoted speeding?

 

[PhulesAu]

As long as they break Remington , the facts of who purchased or owned it makes no difference.

 

[Wiliamr]

As long as they break Remington , the facts of who purchased or owned it makes no difference.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner...... In the long run if Remington can be bankrupted the facts matter not.

 

[Renegade]

Perhaps it’s not “safe” to assume that; but nevertheless “likely” in my opinion. Adam’s influence on his mother’s decision to buy the Bushmaster can never be known with absolute certainty. Assuming she bought the rifle within five or six years prior to the Sandy Hook shooting, that would have put Adam in the 14 to 15 year old range. And certainly it’s not inconceivable a video game playing teenager of that age could have and probably, would have been ragging on his mom to get one of those “scary black rifles”. JMO - YMMV

Again, she was a long time gun owner and collector, ZERO evidence he had any influence. Like I said, a little work with google and you will see she was interested in shooting and guns, not him.

Not sure why you are bent on making stuff up.

The more "likely" scenario is Occams Razor - She liked guns, she bought the guns she liked, he killed her and took one of them.

If I fault her [the mother] for anything, it’s for coddling her son and not getting him the help he needed. And as it turned out, she paid for that decision with her life.

How do you know she was not getting him the help he needed? have you seen all the medical records? Again, you are just making stuff up. Please cite facts.

 

[Chirpy]

My understanding is that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not apply as they are alleging that the Marketing was improper, as it was aimed at glorifying the death of humans, an illegal act. So they are not suing over the weapon, but the marketing of same. Which since he killed him mom and stole the weapon, I'm not sure how the marketing of said weapon matters.