HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


J&J May Have Just Received Lifeline Out Of St. Louis Talc Tort Morass

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

A judge in the Missouri state court where J&J has suffered a series of hefty losses declared a mistrial June 19 in the latest talc-cancer case to be heard by jurors. The decision came two days after a US Supreme Court decision that also could trigger reversals of costly J&J verdicts currently under appeal.

You may also be interested in...

J&J’s $4.69Bn Damages From Missouri Trial On Talc-Cancer Link Cut In Half, But Verdict Upheld

J&J’s appeal of largest verdict yet in complaints challenging safety of talc in its Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Shimmer products failed, but a Missouri court cut its damages by more than half. Missouri appellate panel says the firm should pay $500m compensatory and $1.62bn punitive damages.

J&J Talc Setback: Missouri Court Decision Keeps Out-Of-State Plaintiff Door Open

The numerous out-of-state plaintiffs waiting to take on J&J in Missouri over alleged talc harm may be able to litigate their cases after all, despite a recent US Supreme Court decision against plaintiff venue shopping. A Missouri circuit court judge has found grounds for jurisdiction in J&J's use of a Missouri-based manufacturing and packaging firm.

J&J Wins Reversal Of $72M Talc Verdict, Signaling Whole New Ballgame

What has seemed an endless queue of plaintiffs waiting to litigate claims against J&J in Missouri for alleged talc harm may begin thinning out following a June mistrial and now the reversal of an earlier $72m verdict against the company, both due to jurisdictional issues dictated by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Related Content





Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts