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
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,
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
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
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.
Unlike SCOTUS, the justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court often all agreed with one another this year, reaching August before issuing a single dissent. The Court’s most precedential decision was Facebook, Inc. v. State, in which the justices unanimously held that Facebook could not be compelled to provide the
In State v. Olenowski (A-56-18) (082253) (Decided November 15, 2023), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testimony is reliable and admissible under the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), albeit with certain limitations. The decision is
Technological innovations continue to raise novel questions before the state’s highest court. The New Jersey Supreme recently granted certification in Goyco vs. Progressive Insurance Co., which asks whether a person riding an electric scooter qualifies as a “pedestrian” for the purposes of a personal injury lawsuit. Facts of the Case