Jackson Jambalaya

A Missouri appeals court showed Ridgeland attorney Allen Smith, Jr. another reversal of a huge jury award in his talc powder jihad. Mr. Smith racked up an impressive series of wins in lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson in St. Louis over products liability claims involving talc powder. However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw a huge freeze over his success in one day. Reuters reported in June:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in a case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb Co that state courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state when the alleged injuries did not occur there. 

The ruling immediately led a St. Louis judge at J&J's urging to declare a mistrial in the latest talc case, in which two of the three women at issue were from out of state. It also could imperil prior verdicts and cases that have yet to go to trial. Rest of article.

 St. Louis juries gave huge awards to Mr. Smith's clients.  However, a mistrial was declared in one trial last summer after the Supreme Court issued its ruling.  The Supreme Court's holding forced a Missouri appeals court to reverse a $72 million verdict for one of Mr. Smith's clients.  The St. Louis Dispatch reported Wednesday:

 The Missouri Eastern District appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $72 million jury verdict for a woman who claimed her longtime use of baby powder and other Johnson & Johnson products contributed to ovarian cancer that killed her.

The ruling could kill three other recent St. Louis jury verdicts of more than $200 million combined against the New Jersey-based health care giant, which has also appealed the cases.

In a statement, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman said the company is pleased with the opinion and is continuing its appeals.

“In the cases involving nonresident plaintiffs who sued in the state of Missouri, we consistently argued that there was no jurisdiction and we expect the existing verdicts that we are appealing to be reversed,” the statement said....

The appeals court Tuesday ruled 3-0 that Jacqueline Fox’s lawsuit lacked jurisdiction in Missouri because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that imposed limits on where injury lawsuits can be filed. The Bristol-Myers Squibb case said non-California residents could not file claims there against the New York-based maker of the blood thinner Plavix, ruling that establishing a lawsuit’s jurisdiction requires a stronger connection between the forum state and a plaintiff’s claims.

Fox, 62, of Birmingham, Ala., died in 2015, about four months before her trial was held in St. Louis Circuit Court. She was among 65 plaintiffs — of whom only two were from Missouri — who joined in the lawsuit. A jury in February 2016 awarded her $10 million in actual damages and $62 million in punitive damages.

 The appeals court ruling Tuesday vacated Fox’s lawsuit entirely instead of sending it back to the circuit court, finding the court has no authority to “rewind the case so as to supplement the pre-trial record to establish jurisdiction under the new standard.”

Thomas Stewart, a St. Louis University professor who runs the law school’s trial advocacy program, said the appeals court had no choice but to vacate Fox’s lawsuit, given recent court decisions on jurisdiction. He said the three other verdicts, given their similarities to Fox’s case, are likely to be wiped out. “I can’t imagine that they’re going to hold on to those verdicts,” he said.  Rest of article.

 A far cry from when Mr. Smith went running to WLBT with his success: