Making the Case for Expert Testimony Reform in New Jersey

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.

By |2015-07-16T20:42:59-04:00July 16, 2015|News, Top Stories|0 Comments

New Jersey High Court Broadens NJ’s Whistleblower Statute

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?

By |2015-07-15T18:35:19-04:00July 15, 2015|News, Top Stories|0 Comments

An Appealing Policy Change

Did you know New Jersey is one of only eleven states where the court system is required to give tobacco companies a benefit that other defendants are denied? It’s true. As part of the Master Settlement Agreement reached in 1998, New Jersey agreed to put a cap on the amount of money tobacco companies must post as bond in order to appeal adverse verdicts in exchange for money and other concessions from the 5 tobacco companies involved in the litigation. To this day, tobacco companies are the only defendants in New Jersey that get the benefit of an appeal bond cap.

By |2015-07-10T13:13:40-04:00July 10, 2015|News, Top Stories|0 Comments
Go to Top