On Monday, April 27, the New Jersey Supreme Court is holding oral arguments in an interesting medical malpractice case, DeMarco v. Stoddard. The court’s ruling in this case has the potential to upend New Jersey’s medical malpractice insurance market.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of April 18-24.
On Monday, April 27, the New Jersey Supreme Court is holding oral arguments in an interesting medical malpractice case. The court’s ruling in this case will signal how serious the state is about stamping out fraud and corruption, and has the potential to dramatically impact malpractice insurance premiums.
Each week we attempt to highlight a crazy lawsuit that is making a mockery of our legal system and delaying justice for litigants with legitimate claims by clogging our courts. This week we had a problem - there were too many ridiculous lawsuits to choose from.
A white paper recapping important legal developments in the civil justice movement that occurred in 2014 has been published by the Federalist Society. Part I of the paper focuses on broad trends, Part II provides an overview of new legislation, and Part III highlights court cases from across the country that either strike down previously adopted reforms or adopt novel legal theories of interest to reformers. The paper was authored by NJCJI’s Emily Kelchen.
Click here to view The Daily Show clip. [...]
One of our complaints about New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act is that it is overly broad - encompassing many disputes that could resolved more efficiently by other means. So, it was nice to see a recent Appellate Division reverse a trial court CFA summary judgment for the plaintiff in the case of the house that is sliding down a hill.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of April 11-17.
New Jersey is a hotbed of food-based litigation. Late last year, the popular supermarket chain Wegmans was sued because its bread is not made from scratch at each store. Rather than settling this rather frivolous claim, Wegmans is fighting back, and in doing so is revealing how much of a shake-down these sorts of lawsuits truly are.
New Jersey’s court rule governing the admissibility and review of expert testimony has 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 case law have all changed to reflect the increased importance and use of expert testimony. At NJCJI’s urging, the NJ Supreme Court asked its Committee on the Rules of Evidence to take a closer look at the state’s laws governing this issue.
