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

Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, 226 N.J. 480 (2016).  In He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (2011), the Supreme Court addressed issues of remittitur at length and in detail.  Among other things, the Court there “endorsed the use of comparable verdicts in remittitur motions,” as Justice Albin stated in his unanimous opinion today.  But in today’s opinion, the Court announced that “the comparison of supposedly similar verdicts to assess whether a particular damages

Williams v. American Auto Logistics, 226 N.J. 117 (2016).  Parties who fail to follow procedural rules are a source of frustration to busy trial judges.  As Justice Fernandez-Vina noted in today’s opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, courts have “a panoply of sanctions in [their] arsenal” to redress violations of procedural rules.  In this Special Civil Part case, which plaintiff originally filed pro se, the Court stated that striking a jury demand is n