A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of March 4-10.
Certain New Jersey businesses have a hard time appealing verdicts against them because it is simply too expensive to do so. The cost comes not just from the expense of hiring attorneys, but from having to post a bond for the full amount of an adverse verdict before being allowed to appeal. In this day and age, eye-popping jury verdicts are not uncommon, but financial regulations and the nature of certain businesses makes it challenging to get funding for appeal bonds.
Our court system shouldn’t have to deal with suits over [...]
$115 million dollars. That’s how much money a jury in [...]
Click here for information about the New Jersey Civil [...]
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.
In this era of increased governmental regulations, lawyers are flush with potential causes for action. Even the most diligent businesses can find themselves on the wrong side of civil litigation. A key protection against an unfair civil verdict is the ability to seek recourse through an appeal.
Putting a limit on the amount of money a businesses has to post as a bond before appealing a decision they disagree with is an issue the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute has been working on for many years. While our legislature fails to act, other states are moving forward on this issue, putting New Jersey at a further disadvantage when it comes to economic development and business growth.
NERA Economic Consulting has released a new study on consumer [...]
S-3030, the Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 II, advanced from [...]