In Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, (NJ 2018) the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Legislature properly invoked the Legislative Review Clause. Legislative Review Clause In 1992, the New Jersey Constitution was amended to include the Legislative Review Clause. It authorizes the
In State v. Anthony (A-11-17/079344)(Decided March 13, 2019), the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified the process law enforcement officers must follow when they ask eyewitnesses to try to identify a suspect. In doing so, the state’s highest court mandated several new safeguards for the admission of eyewitness identification evidence.
In Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft, (A-13/14-17) (Decided March 26, 2019), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that that plaintiffs who elected limited $15,000 personal injury protection (PIP) coverage can’t seek economic damages for the difference between their reduced limit and the amount of their unpaid medical bills, totaled
In Vincent Piscitelli v. City of Garfield Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified when conflicts of interest may disqualify a Zoning Board member from voting on a matter. The court stopped short of finding that members of the Garfield Zoning Board of Adjustment had a
By Donald Scarinci In Caraballo v. City of Jersey City, (A-71-17/080467) (Decided March 29, 2019), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that police detective Frank Caraballo’s failure to utilize the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act’s (Act) administrative remedies to obtain knee replacement surgery precluded his failure-to-accommodate claim under the
In State v. Hester, A-91-16/079228 (Decided May 30, 2018),the Supreme Court of New Jersey struck down 2014 amendments to the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act (VPIA), which is part of Megan’s Law. The state’s highest court found that the amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. and New
In Alexandra Rodriguez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. A-2/3-17/079470 (March 4, 2019), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the admissibility of medical expert testimony using terms such as “somatization” and “symptom magnification” must be determined by trial courts on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the New Jersey Rules of Evidence
In In re Accutane Litigation, No. 079958, 2018 WL 3636867 (Decided Aug. 1, 2018), the Supreme Court of New Jersey provided much-needed clarity regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence under the New Jersey Rules of Evidence. Although the state’s highest court stopped short of declaring New Jersey a “Daubert jurisdiction,”
