Court Opinion

ID: 9433872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:32.678698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:44.556642
License: Public Domain

CHIEF Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy join, concurring.
Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion highlights in graphic detail the massive impact of asbestos-related claims on the federal courts. Post, at 866-867. Were I devising a system for handling these claims on a clean slate, I would agree entirely with that dissent, which in turn approves the near-heroic efforts of the District Court in this ease to make the best of a bad situation. Under the present regime, transactional costs will surely consume more and more of a relatively static amount of money to pay these claims.
But we are not free to devise an ideal system for adjudicating these claims. Unless and until the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are revised, the Court’s opinion correctly states the existing law, and I join it. But the "elephantine mass of asbestos cases,” ante, at 821, cries out for a legislative solution.