Plaintiffs' attorneys firing the first courtroom salvos in sweeping litigation over popular products face a high hurdle to success: convincing jurors a product they may have used all of their lives can cause potentially catastrophic harm. That's the hurdle The Smith Law Firm's Allen Smith overcame in landing a $55 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson for the ovarian cancer Smith says J&J's signature-brand baby powder caused his client, Gloria Ristesund. 

Some corporate franchisors try to have their cake (or, allegedly in this case, pizza pie) and eat it too when it comes to independent franchisees. Franchise agreements seek to control the franchisee as if it is an agent, but gain protection from liability that working with an independent entity affords. That independent contractor label can pose a difficult hurdle to holding a corporate franchisor liable for the actions of a franchisee. But, in Weiderhold v. Domino’s Pizza, Mark Avera proved the link to render Domino's Pizza liable for the actions of its franchisee pizza store, and the delivery driver involved in a catastrophic car crash. In the process, he secured a nine-figure verdict. 

When given hours of evidence stretching across a long trial, jurors can become so overwhelmed they tune out potentially critical information, even in closing arguments. To counter that, Chris Panatier, of  Simon Greenstone  Panatier Bartlett, employed an ingenious technique to burn verdict-turning evidence into jurors’ minds—he combined his words with the powerful visual people generally associate with a negative—red flags. 

How do you tell a jury to put a dollar figure on damages beyond medical expenses and lost paychecks? Nicholas Rowley’s closing argument on the value of life set the stage for an $8.3 million verdict to the family of a Vietnamese immigrant killed in a deadly collision with a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority vehicle.