In State v. Edgar Torres (A-52-19/083676) (Decided May 11, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an explicit statement, explaining the overall fairness of a sentence imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding or in multiple sentencing proceedings, is essential to a proper sentencing assessment under State
In Vincent Hager v. M&K Construction (A-64-19/084045) (Decided April 13, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that an employer may be required to reimburse the costs of an employee’s medical marijuana. It further held that such a requirement does not conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Facts
In Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, (A-68-19/084022) (Decided March 9, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Township of Ocean Police Department’s disparate procedures violate the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). It was the first time the state’s highest court had considered the PWFA, which amended existing portions
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,
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
While most states allow law firms to use trade names, New Jersey had resisted relaxing its law firm name requirements. However, under the most recent amendments to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 (RPC 7.5), the Supreme Court of New Jersey will now allow law firms to use trade names without
