Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 123 S. Ct. 1210 (2003)
In this case, Baron & Budd’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief helped to persuade the United States Supreme Court that a railroad worker who developed asbestosis may ask the jury to consider his reasonable fear of contracting an asbestos-related cancer, such as mesothelioma, in calculating the award of damages that the railroad should pay.
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 526 U.S. 815, 119 S. Ct. 2295 (1999)
As in the much-publicized case of Amchem v. Windsor described below, Baron & Budd successfully led the battle to throw out a class action settlement that would have severely limited the rights of mesothelioma and asbestos claimants exposed to products manufactured by Fibreboard Corporation. The United States Supreme Court held that the Fibreboard class action settlement violated Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 23′s requirements for the certification of a mandatory class action settlement. The Supreme Court also questioned the fairness of the settlement because, if allowed to go forward, Fibreboard would have settled all asbestos claims– including all future claims–with only $500,000 of its own money, thus retaining virtually all of its net worth at the expense of the victims of its asbestos-containing products.
Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed2d 689 (1997)
Acting as lead counsel for the objecting class members and together with a constitutional law scholar, Baron & Budd convinced the United States Supreme Court to uphold the decision of an appeals court that threw out a nationwide class action settlement of “future claims” of asbestos and mesothelioma cancer because the class members were not adequately represented.