Supreme Court rejects appeal from Conagra, Sherwin-Williams in $ 400 million lead-paint box

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from Conagra Brands and Sherwin-Williams Co., leaving intact $ 400 million for lead-paint remediation in California.

The rebuff, issued without comment Monday, is a blow to business groups, which was called for high court review, the opioid addiction and gun violence.

In different appeals, Sherwin-Williams and Conagra units said the state of the laws of the United States of America. Ten California cities and counties for public nuisance by promoting lead paint.

"While we are disappointed, the Supreme Court reviews," the companies said in a joint statement after the court acted. "California's decision is that they should not be held retroactively liable for lawful conduct and commercial conduct after taking place."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the success of the lead-paint in the United States of America.

The cities and counties said the companies and their trade associations promoted irreversible neurological harm, particularly to children. Lead paint was banned in the U.S. in 1978 but remains on the walls of many homes.

"These cumulative, coordinated efforts have been enormously successful, resulting in sustained, increased, and prolonged use of residencies throughout the jurisdictions," lawyers for the cities and counties argued.

A State Court Judge in Santa Clara County after a six-week trial that caused public nuisance and a California appeals court upheld the judgment. $ 409 million, a figure designed to cover the cost of inspection and abatement in more than a million homes built before 1951.

Public-nuisance lawsuits are designed to address conduct that broadly affects a community, like pollution or the storage of explosives. California has authorized government lawyers to press public-nuisance suits since 1872.

Sherwin-Williams and Conagra said they are not affected to public-nuisance suits but said the case against them goes so far it violates the Constitution's due process and free speech clauses.

"Pegging public nuisance," "Sherwin-Williams argued.

Chicago-based Conagra said in short papers the California ruling "opens the door to potential unbundled conditions" in situations where traditional common-law and constitutional protections should prevent recovery. "

Conagra was a defendant in the case because of the Beatrice Co. company in 1990, and Beatrice had owned paint-maker P. W. Fuller Co. until 1967.