In Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, (A-29-19/083379) (Decided January 13, 2021),the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified the good faith defense under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL), ruling that Cream-O-Land Dairy could not assert a defense under N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2 based on its good-faith reliance on certain determinations
In State v. Damon Williams (A-46-19/083532) (Decided January 19, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the prosecutor’s comments and use of a PowerPoint slide referencing the movie The Shining amounted to prejudicial error. Facts of State v. Williams Defendant Damon Williams (Williams or Defendant) was charged with
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently intervened in New Jersey v. Omar Vega-Larregui. The closely-watched case involves a constitutional challenge to the state’s virtual grand jury program, which was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual Grand Juries By Order dated May 14, 2020, the Court authorized a
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently amended its rules governing the legal name change process. The changes to Rule 4:72-3 (Notice of Application) and 4:72-4 (Hearing; Judgment; Publication; Filing) eliminate the requirement of newspaper publication of the notice of application and judgment granting a name change. Under the prior rule,
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently heard oral arguments in a closely-watched case involving insurance claims related to Superstorm Sandy. The specific issue in New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London is whether New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (NJ Transit) insurers must insure $400 million of water
In Delaney v. Dickey, (A-30-19/083440) (Decided December 21, 2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that attorneys must generally explain to a client the benefits and disadvantages of arbitrating a prospective dispute between the attorney and client for an arbitration provision in a retainer agreement to be enforceable. Facts
In Johnson & Johnson v. Director, Division of Taxation,(A-51-19/083612) (Decided December 7, 2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruledthat Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was required to pay an insurance premium tax (IPT) based only upon its premium for risks localized in New Jersey rather than upon its total United
Rising COVID-19 cases have forced New Jersey Courts to again limit in-person proceedings, and the New Jersey Supreme Court is asking for feedback on what to do next. Under its proposal, New Jersey would conduct virtual civil jury trials during the ongoing pandemic. According to a Notice to the Bar,
