According to a March 24 Notice to the Bar that was published today, the Supreme Court Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges has approved a number of revised Model Civil Jury Charges on a number of subjects.  Though all of the changes are important to note, several of the revised charges resulted directly from recent appellate decisions in the affected subject matter areas.

Model Charge 1.18 deals with adverse inferences from a party’s failure to produce evidence.  The charge has been revised in light of

Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  In Abbamont v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ., 238 N.J. Super. 603 (App. Div. 1990), aff’d, 138 N.J. 405 (1994), the Appellate Division ruled that there was no right to a jury trial under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14 (“CEPA”).  Thereafter, the Legislature amended CEPA to provide expressly that “a jury trial shall b

The Supreme Court has announced that it has granted review in three new cases.  The cases are an interesting assortment.

In State v. Burkett, a criminal case, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Was defendant’s conduct distributing wedding photographs of a colleague to which defendant had added vulgar annotations protected speech that could not constitute criminal harassment?”  In the Matter of the Enforcement of New Jersey False Claims Act Subpoenas poses the following question, as phrased by the Cle