T.L. v. Goldberg, ___ N.J. ___ (2019). The issue in this medical malpractice case was whether plaintiff was entitled to a new trial because defendant, without objection by plaintiff, offered trial testimony that was inconsistent with his discovery responses. That issue produced a 2-1 split in the Appellate Division, whose ruling was reported at 453 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2018). As discussed here, the majority ordered a new trial, finding that the situation here paralleled that of McKenney v. Jersey City Med. Center, 167 N.J. 359 (2001). Judge Currier dissented. In a unanimous decision by...

Komis v. Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, 918 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2019).  This opinion by Judge Scirica today affirmed the result of a jury trial in this Title VII retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment case.  Judge Scirica encapsulated virtually the entire ruling of the panel in the second paragraph of his opinion: “This appeal requires us to decide whether federal employees may bring retaliation claims under Title VII.  We conclude they may.  We are then asked to consider whether the same standard governs federal- and private-sector retaliation claims,...

State v. Brown, 457 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 2018).  Deliberating jurors often request that trial testimony be read back to them.  As Judge Sabatino noted n his opinion in this case today, the Supreme Court has held that “absent some unusual circumstance, those requests should be granted.”  But what is to be done when a jury requests that counsel’s summation, which is not evidence, be read back?  That was the issue in the published portion of Judge Sabatino’s decision in this drug case, where the jury asked to hear defense counsel’s summation again. ...