For The Defense, December 2011 - DRI Today

Q:
Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Who takes a stand on the cases that
matter most to you, your firm and
the defense bar?
“Allowing hundreds of thousands (and now over a million) of
individuals to file a singular, overly generalized claim clearly
disregards the requirement of individualized proof. While we hope
justice is served for anyone who faces discrimination, this enormous
aggregation of truly disparate claims could not result in any kind of
just and fair ruling.”
—R. Matthew Cairns, Immediate Past President of DRI
AAAAAmmerican American Electric El Power Company v.
State Stat of Connecticut
“Singling out these five utility companies is legally dubious and
an ill-suited avenue for tackling global warming issues. The
Supreme Court’s review of this case should reinforce and clarify
existing precedent on the appropriate roles for the courts,
legislature, and regulatory bodies in climate change issues.”
—John Parker Sweeney, Second Vice President of DRI and
Ocer Liaison to the Climate Change Litigation
Task Force
A: DRI—taking
on the
issues that matter.
■ American Electric Power
Company v. State of
Connecticut
■ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
■ E.P.J. Fund v. Halliburton
■ Greenwood v. CompuCredit
■ Harvey and Mowdy v. KAG
West and Kennan Advantage
Group Inc.
■ Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano
■ Minneci v. Pollard
■ Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Jackson
■ Wal-Mart v. Dukes
■ White and Case v. United States
of America
www.dri.org