Asbestos – Opening Arguments

Today’s Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday! We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments.

We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter’s privilege in Episode 200. What’s the other side of the argument? Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter’s ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential!

After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos. Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability.

Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news. What does this mean? How has the Supreme Court’s decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws? Listen and find out!

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial. Phew!

And if all that wasn’t enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

We discussed reporter’s privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review.
Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29. We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980).
Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

Note: the SaneBox url in this episode is incorrect. Please go to https://www.sanebox.com/opening to take advantage of a great deal on their product!

Today’s Rapid Response Friday breaks down everything you need to know regarding the Trump EPA’s recent rules change regarding asbestos. Is it as ominous as it sounds? (Yes.)

We begin, however, with the oddest OA segment of all time: Devin Nunes was right! What was he right about, and what’s a Michael Kinsley gaffe? You’ll just have to listen and find out!

After that, in a bonus segment, the guys break down the recent indictment of Chris Collins (R-NY-27) for insider trading.

The main segment breaks down the EPA’s Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regarding asbestos and help you evaluate the competing claims being lobbed back and forth. Did the Trump Administration open up the use of asbestos in household products? Or did they make it harder to use asbestos as the EPA claims? We give you a definitive answer.

After that, Andrew partially answers a listener question in light of Rick Gates’s testimony in the Manafort trial while teasing that the rest will get answered sometime soon.

And if that wasn’t enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 involving a contract, waiver and modification, and subsequent assignment to another party. Phew! If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.