Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
May 2024 NJ Supreme Court holds that non-disparagement provisions cannot prohibit disclosure of details relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment - The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that...more
On August 17, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Schwartz v. Menas, 279 A.3d 436 (N.J. 2022). At issue was whether the plaintiff’s claim for lost profits damages as a new business was barred by the “new business rule.” This...more
After losing in both the trial and appellate courts, Armando Rios, Jr., an ex-Pharmaceutical Executive, managed to sway the minds of the Justices on the State’s highest court to revive his hostile work environment claim. Rios...more
In a recent decision, New Jersey Appellate Court applied the expert admissibility standard from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340 (2018) as a basis for reinstating two...more
In responding to the question of law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to Rule 2:12A-3, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered in the affirmative that a claim under the New Jersey...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) relating to the sale of a product are not per se subsumed by the New Jersey Product Liability Act (“NJPLA”). The...more
On July 1, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued its unanimous opinion in Investors Bank v. Torres confirming that an assignee of a note lost by a predecessor in interest can enforce the lost note. The Supreme Court...more
Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court has granted certification and will review the Appellate Division decision in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education, 459 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 2019). As we described in the August 2009 New...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an insurance company was not required to show it was prejudiced by an insured’s late notice in order to deny coverage under a claims made policy. In Templo Fuente de Vida Corp....more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently revisited its earlier decision in Zuckerman v. National Union Fire Insurance Fire Insurance Co., 100 N.J. 304, 495 A.2d 395 (1985) and upheld the strict enforcement of notice and...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an insurer may disclaim coverage without showing it was prejudiced by a policyholder’s failure to comply with a claims-made policy’s notice provision. In Templo Fuente De...more