The Supreme Court announced late last Friday that it has granted review in three more cases.  Two of those cases involve the long-running Accutane Multi-County Litigation, which the Court has addressed before, in several contexts, in McCarrell v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017), discussed here, and Kendall v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 209 N.J. 173 (2012), discussed

Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2017).  Today’s decision by Judge Jordan for a unanimous en banc court began with a pun and continued as follows: “Today we stop swimming against the tide of opinion on an important question of maritime law.  Following the lead of several of our sister circuits, we now hold that a union contract freely entered by a seafarer– a contract that includes rates of maintenance, cure, and and unearned wages– wi

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court did what it does not often do: affirm a decision of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, rather than writing its own fully-expressed opinion.

Yesterday’s ruling, in Granata v. Broderick, ___ N.J. ___ (2017), affirmed a decision by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  As the Supreme Court summarized it, the Appellate Division ruled that “an att