"The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and a menace to Oklahomans," he added. "My judgment includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that the state met its burden that the defendants, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance."

Specifically he said, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen created a nuisance that caused an increased rate of addictions, overdose deaths and addicted babies in Oklahoma.

Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal.

"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome," said Michael Ullmann, general counsel of Johnson & Johnson. "We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. We are working with partners to find ways to help those in need."

Lawyers suing opioid manufacturers and distributors, in both state and federal courts across the country, closely watched the trial. An Oct. 21 trial would be the first in the multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, in Cleveland, which now encompasses nearly 2,000 cases, primarily brought by cities and counties, over the opioid crisis.

In its statement, Johnson & Johnson said the decision would have little impact on the upcoming trial in the multidistrict litigation, which names 21 other defendants and additional claims other than public nuisance. "The Company remains open to viable options to resolve these cases, including through settlement," the company said in a press release on Monday.

Lead plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation—Paul Farrell of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel; Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy; and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice—said the decision would strengthen the claims of their clients, including the two Ohio counties preparing for the upcoming trial.

"Today's ruling holding Johnson & Johnson liable for Oklahoma's opioid epidemic serves as another milestone amid the mounting evidence against the opioid pharmaceutical industry who we allege started, fueled, and conspired to create the largest public health crisis of our time," they wrote. "The ruling in favor of the State of Oklahoma's public nuisance claims confirms what communities have been saying for some time: The opioid epidemic significantly interfered with public health. While public nuisance laws differ in every state, this decision is a critical step forward for the more than 2,000 cities, counties, and towns we represent in the consolidation of federal opioid cases."

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, said that if an appeals court did not reverse the decision, "almost any industry could be the target of large-scale litigation."

"Today's decision is based on questionable legal claims from an ill-conceived lawsuit that will do little to solve Oklahoma's opioid crisis," she said in a statement. "No one denies the magnitude of the opioid problem in Oklahoma, but letting private lawyers distort the scarcely-used public nuisance theory in hopes of getting a massive settlement isn't the solution."

Jennifer Braceras, director of the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Law & Liberty, also said the decision will not do much to solve the opioid crisis. "The verdict is a victory for taxation by litigation, but it is consumers who will pay the price in the form of higher prices and reduced access to pain medications for patients who need them," she said in a statement.

American Tort Reform Association President Tiger Joyce noted that Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, a Republican, had joined with 17 other states, in a May 17 amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in opposing the use of public nuisance law to pursue claims over climate change.

"AG Mike Hunter's use of public nuisance law and the judge's decision to let it stand is a major expansion in this area of law," Joyce said in a statement. "We fear that other industries, including Oklahoma's oil and gas producers, may now be vulnerable to public nuisance law's applicability to them with regard to issues like climate change as the state looks for additional funding sources to manage public crises."

The Oklahoma case initially named Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals, along with Janssen. Purdue settled out of the case in March for $270 million. One day before trial, Teva agreed to pay $85 million, leaving Johnson & Johnson as the only defendant at trial.

At the trial, which began May 28 in Norman, Oklahoma, lawyers for the state of Oklahoma argued that Johnson & Johnson's aggressive marketing of its opioids led doctors and hospital staff, and others, to believe the painkillers were not addictive and could be appropriate for pain treatment in the long term. Joining Attorney General Mike Hunter at trial were Brad Beckworth, a partner at Nix Patterson in Austin, Texas, and Michael Burrage and Reggie Whitten, co-founders of Whitten Burrage in Oklahoma City.

Johnson & Johnson's lawyers brought up rampant misuse of its prescription painkillers, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved. Their products also come with warnings concerning—one of several factors influencing decisions by doctors to prescribe opiate painkillers. Larry Ottaway of Oklahoma City's Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom, represented Johnson & Johnson.

Read more: 

• Lawyers in opioid suit seek nationwide class certification
• New lawsuit unveils scope of Purdue's 'extraordinary efforts' to push opioids
• Opioid manufacturers: A public nuisance?