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,”
In State v. Eileen Cassidy, (A-58-16/078390) (Decided November 13, 2018), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that breath test results produced by Alcotest machines not calibrated using a NIST-traceable thermometer are inadmissible. The decision called into question thousands of convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Facts of State v.
In All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks County Int’l, Inc., (A066/67-17) (Decided January 24, 2019), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Consumer Fraud Act’s (CFA) definition of “merchandise” should be liberally construed. It went on to hold that the definition extends to a customized tow truck.
In Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. R.L.M. and J.J., the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that parents have the right to represent themselves in actions to terminate parental rights. Facts of Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. R.L.M. and J.J Plaintiff New Jersey Division of Child
In Kaminskas v. State (NJ, 2019) the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that each county — not the Attorney General — is responsible for defending and potentially indemnifying its police officers. The court’s decision was unanimous. Legal Background The New Jersey Tort Claims Act governs the defense and indemnification
In Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of Florida, the Supreme Court of New Jersey refused to enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement in a home warranty contract because it lacked mutual assent. The court did not reach the argument of whether its ruling in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group should
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently agreed to consider Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin. The case involves when a submission to the planning board should be considered an “application for development” that triggers the “time of application rule.” Time of
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has agreed to consider whether municipal affordable housing obligations include a “separate and discrete” gap-period obligation from 1999 through 2015, when the various “growth share” regulations were repeatedly invalidated by the courts. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case by the end
