Other Plaintiffs, They’re Just Like Us

Print Print

When a child seeks permission for a summertime ice cream, she often points to other similarly-situated children enjoying the sweet treat to strengthen her argument that her request should be granted.  This childhood instinct is spot on:  evidence appears stronger when multiple parties have engaged in the same behavior or encountered the same harm.  Indeed, our legal system supports the efficient joining of claims to marshal shared evidence and address common questions.  However, the right to introduce other similar evidence is not limitless in all circumstances.  A party that seeks to offer other similar incident evidence must show that the other accident or harm was “substantially” similar to that suffered under the present facts.  In Adams v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 15-2507, 2017 WL 2485204, at *4 (8th Cir. June 9, 2017), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the admission of evidence of “substantial” similarity during a jury trial.  Defendants facing claims that

Read the full article →

Court finds EPA lacked “substantial evidence” to register nanosilver-based pesticide

When I last posted about nanomaterials—in connection with the Environmental Protection Agency’s March 19, 2015 response to a petition for rulemaking on nanosilver—I predicted that more “nano-disputes” would soon make their way into court.  Sure enough, the Ninth Circuit recently revoked the EPA’s conditional registration of the second registered nanosilver-basedRead the full article →