Tag: 2024

NJ Supreme Court Rules Refund Provision Does Not Extend to All CFA Violations

NJ Supreme Court Rules Refund Provision Does Not Extend to All CFA Violations

In DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. (A-37-22/087891) (Decided January 10, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the refund provision set forth in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 does not provide relief for all Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) violations. Rather, it is limited solely to the food-related misrepresentations expressly proscribed

NJ Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Free Speech Case

NJ Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Free Speech Case

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently heard oral arguments in Usachenok v. State of New Jersey Department of the Treasury. The case challenges a regulation that requests that state employees involved in discrimination investigations maintain its confidentiality. While the regulation was amended in 2020 to address free speech concerns,

NJ Supreme Court Rejects Expert's "Rule of Thumb" Assessment 

NJ Supreme Court Rejects Expert’s “Rule of Thumb” Assessment 

In State v. Roberson Burney (A-14-22/086966) (Decided August 2, 2023), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held it was cumulative error for the trial court to admit two pieces of evidence: expert testimony that defendant’s cell phone was likely near a crime scene based on a “rule of thumb” approximation

NJ Supreme Court to Decide Whether Municipal Email List Is Subject to OPRA

NJ Supreme Court to Decide Whether Municipal Email List Is Subject to OPRA

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a closely watched case involving the State’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA). The key question before the Court is whether email addresses submitted by members of the public to a public agency to sign up for electronic newsletters and notices

NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Custodial Interrogation

NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Custodial Interrogation

In State v. Amandeep K. Tiwana (A-36-22/087919) (Decided November 20, 2023), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an investigating detective’s self-introduction to the defendant at her bedside in the hospital following a car crash did not constitute a custodial interrogation warranting the administration of warnings under Miranda v.