In re Accutane Litig., 2017 WL 3138003 (App. Div. July 25, 2017).  [Disclosure:  I argued for the successful plaintiffs in one of these two consolidated appeals, the one that involved the NJPLA.]  The New Jersey Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-4 (“NJPLA”), creates a presumption, which the Supreme Court has labeled a “virtually dispositive” “super-presumption,” that a manufacturer’s warning regarding a drug is adequate if that warning has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.  The Supreme Court and the Appella

Roberts v. Ferman, 826 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2016).  Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)  deals with the circumstance in which a transcript of a District Court hearing or trial is unavailable.  In such a case, the appellant “may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection,” submit it to the appellee for objections or amendments, and then to the District Court “for settlement and approval.&

State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266 (2015).  Two defendants who had been charged in the same indictment with many of the same crimes sought to suppress certain evidence.  The Law Division denied their application.  Both defendants were found guilty.  Both appealed the ruling on the suppression motion.  The two appeals were heard by different panels.  The panel that heard the first defendant’s appeal affirmed the Law Division’s refusal to suppress the evidence.  When the appeal of th