Castello v. Wohler, 446 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2016).  In Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015), discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that a physician who was retired at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for a medical mal

Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016).  When a judge discharges a jury in a civil case, and only thereafter realizes that the jury verdict contains an error, is there anything that can be done?  That was the question in this case, decided today by the Supreme Court of the United States.  By a 6-2 vote, the Court held that a judge has inherent, but limited, power to recall the jury for further deliberations.  Justice Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts an

State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193 (2016).  Today, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of how a trial court should evaluate the competency of a child witness to testify.  The child in question, M.C., was a seven-year old girl who alleged that, at age five, she had been sexually molested by defendant, who was the boyfriend of M.C.’s cousin, a cousin who occasionally babysat M.C.  Without objection by defendant, M.C. testified at defendant’s trial.  Defendant was convicted of aggravated