In re: Sherwin-Williams Co.

Ct. of Appeals denied petition for writ of mandamus filed by defendant-manufacturer of white lead pigments in underlying lawsuits seeking order directing Dist. Ct. to recuse himself from said cases based on 2007 law review article co-authored by Dist. Ct. in response to criticism of five decisions issued by Wisc. Supreme Court, which held that plaintiff could seek recovery for injuries received from ingesting white lead pigments found in plaintiff’s home even though plaintiff could not identify specific manufacturer of said pigments. While underlying diversity cases concerned four similar lawsuits against defendant and other manufacturers of white lead pigments in which defendant was seeking to attack holdings of Wisc. Supreme Ct, such fact did not require recusal of Dist. Ct. where: (1) Dist. Ct. explicitly disclaimed in article any opinion on merits of Wisc. Supreme Ct. cases; and (2) Dist. Ct. would not be revisiting holdings of Wisc. Supreme Ct. cases when ruling in underlying diversity actions.