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
In Bank Leumi USA v. Kloss, (A-32-19/083372) (Decided July 21, 2020),the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified the state’s entire controversy doctrine at the request of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. It held that a party who files a successful motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
New Jersey’s highest court has signed off on the state’s plan to borrow $9.9 billion to address COVID-19-related revenue losses. The New Jersey Supreme Court held in New Jersey Republican State Committee v. Philip D. Murphy (A-82-19/084731) (Decided August 12, 2020) that the State’s plan to issue bonds and borrow
In Carol Crispino v. Township of Sparta (A-16-19/083171) (Decided July 22, 2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey struck a municipal resolution imposing a special assessment to fund a private dam restoration project. According to the court, the Township arbitrarily applied the special assessment to plaintiffs’ properties because the expert
In Bryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez, (A-70-18/081982) (Decided July 9, 2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a Camden police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment. According to the court, the issue of whether Detective Martínez’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable
In Lembo v. Marchese, (A-92-18/082930) (Decided June 17, 2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the New Jersey Uniform Fiduciaries Law (UFL) does not authorize an affirmative cause of action against a bank. Rather, it provides a bank with a limited immunity from liability for failing to take
