In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
580 F. Supp. 690 (1984)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
During the Vietnam War, the United States military used an herbicide nicknamed Agent Orange to defoliate jungles in locations where military operations occurred, including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Agent Orange was produced by a number of different chemical manufacturers (defendants) and was supplied to the military by way of government contracts. Agent Orange supplied by multiple manufacturers was routinely mixed together into containers before it was used, often making it impossible to identify which manufacturer’s product was being used in a given location. After the war, claims were filed by or on behalf of veterans, their spouses, and their children (veterans) (plaintiffs) in all 50 states, alleging that exposure to Agent Orange caused a variety of injuries and illnesses, including miscarriages and birth defects. The lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial purposes, and a class action was certified. Initially, the district court allowed the veterans to proceed based on federal-question jurisdiction. However, this decision was reversed on appeal, and the veterans were permitted to proceed based only on diversity jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weinstein, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

