Delaware has dominated the business law scene for decades, but a recent move by its legislature has companies considering moving their legal issues, and thus their business, elsewhere. Delaware’s stumble could be an opportunity for New Jersey to woo businesses to the Garden State.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the [...]
This week the American Bar Association is holding its annual meeting in Chicago. Thanks to NJCJI and other pro-defense attorneys and organizations the ABA will not be voting on a controversial resolution (link) that would have put the ABA on record as “oppos[ing] legislation that limits and/or bans punitive damages for claims of patient harm allegedly caused by manufacturers of FDA-approved medical products or devices.”
Did you know that New Jersey lawyers are 70% more likely than their counterparts nationwide to file a claim with their malpractice insurer? Even attorneys practicing in our notoriously litigious neighboring states face fewer malpractice claims. This suggests that one of two things is going on. Either New Jersey attorneys are awful, or there is something about our legal system that is encouraging excessive litigation. Data provided to the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute by CNA insurance suggests that the latter reason is more likely to blame for the high number of malpractice claims filed in the Garden State.
Asbestos litigation has been described by one prominent plaintiffs’ lawyer as an “endless search for a solvent bystander.” Nowhere is this truer than in New Jersey, where we have experienced three waves of asbestos litigation.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of July 11-17.
New Jersey’s rules regarding the admissibility and review of expert testimony have remained unchanged since 1991. In this same period, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Uniform Rules of Evidence, numerous state evidence rules, and our own jurisprudence have all changed to reflect the increased importance and use of expert testimony. The disconnect between the rules on the books and the realities of practice were on full display at the New Jersey Supreme Court’s May 19, 2015 hearing on the Committee on the Rules of Evidence’s latest report.
This New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in the whistleblower case Lippman v. Ethicon raises serious concerns for some employers. NJCJI President Marcus Rayner explained in several news articles how framing internal, debate-based decision-making as whistleblowing that is actionable under CEPA changes the workplace dynamic.
On July 15, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its opinion in the closely-watched employment law case Lippman v. Ethicon. The issue in the case was whether an employee performing activities as part of his or her core job functions, on that basis alone and without further conduct by the employee, can seek whistleblower protection under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) if they are fired?
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of July 4-10.
