The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ds are pharmacies for prescription opiate drugs. Ps claimed Ds in their unlawful and/or intentional dispensing conduct 'substantially contributed to an oversupply of legal prescription opioids and to diversion of those opioids into the illicit market outside appropriate medical channels, thereby endangering public health or safety and creating a public nuisance.' The jury found in favor of Ps on liability. Ds have raised a number of challenges to the jury's verdict. Ds assert the trial evidence is insufficient to support liability on Ps' absolute liability claims, arguing no reasonable juror could have found that: (1) Ds engaged in unlawful dispensing conduct; (2) Ds engaged in intentional, culpable conduct; or (3) Ds' conduct proximately caused a public nuisance. Ds also make arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence as to each Defendant. Ds assert the public nuisance claims fail as a matter of law, regardless of the evidence presented at trial. To find Ds liable for creating a public nuisance, the jury was required to find that a defendant engaged in intentional and/or unlawful conduct 'that caused a significant and ongoing interference with a public right to health or safety.'

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.