The admissibility of expert testimony is a hot topic in the New Jersey legal world right now. A report from the court’s Committee on the Rules of Evidence has confirmed that the case law does not match the court rules on the books, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Townsend v. Pierre only increases the differences.
Right now there are five common sense legal reform bills with bipartisan sponsorship under consideration in the legislature. Several of these bills have been languishing in committee for years without action. Meanwhile, all of us are shouldering the burden of New Jersey’s excessively expensive and inefficient tort liability system through higher prices, lower wages, decreased returns on investments in capital and land, restricted access to health care, and less innovation. It is time for the legislature get serious about legal reform so the citizens and businesses of this state can get some relief.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. v. Patricia Atalese is already wreaking havoc on the arbitration system in New Jersey, and has the potential to negatively impact the law in other states if the U.S. Supreme Court does not step in. That was the take-away from NJCJI’s March 20 teleforum featuring attorney Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown, who is one of the nation’s leading experts on arbitration law.
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) was enacted in 1960 to protect New Jersey citizens against deceptive business practices. When it was first passed, the state’s Attorney General served as the sole enforcer of the act. Though the Act was amended in 1971 to permit private enforcement, the Attorney General’s office, specifically the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, is still the public’s most important protector against scam artists and fraudsters.
Have you ever purchased Tylenol? If so, you are a potential member of a ridiculous class action lawsuit that has been filed against Johnson & Johnson.
Citing recent events that have further exposed the “corruption and outright fraud that have long been endemic to asbestos litigation,” the American Tort Reform Association has launched a new website that “will document the overwhelming case for substantive reforms.”
The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute has filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that places limits on arbitration agreements. On Friday, March 20, at noon the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute is holding a policy teleforum to discuss this case and its implications. The featured speaker will be Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown, one of the attorneys representing NJCJI and the U.S. Chamber in this case.
The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute has filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that places limits on arbitration agreements. Action from the Supreme Court is desperately needed. The New Jersey decision is already wreaking havoc on the state’s contract law - pushing more cases into courts and out of cheaper, faster, and more efficient arbitration programs.
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.
On February 18, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decisions in two cases that had the potential to dramatically re-shape the state’s insurance law. The court’s opinion in the Wadeer case has gotten the attention of the legal community, but not for the reasons one might expect. The court declined to answer several questions related to the case, and instead directed the Civil Practice Committee to look into the issues and make recommendations.
