Archive for January 2015
What It Takes to Get Workers’ Compensation
Submitted by Workers Compensation Attorney, Jeffrey Hark Diaz-Paredes v. Whole Foods Market (decided January 23, 2015) is an appeal from an administrative decision of Workers’ Compensation. The appellant worked for Whole Foods for eight years in a position that involved bending, lifting, and pushing carts and claims that she suffered orthopedic, neurological, and neuropsychiatric injuries…
Read MoreReasonable Judgment Applies to Judges Too
The case attached to this blog involves two judges, one of the Superior Court, and one of the City of Paterson Municipal Court. The judges regularly attended Mass and a weekly dinner after Mass with an individual who later came under indictment for official misconduct based on using his public position to have public employees…
Read MoreProbable Cause Will Probably Withstand a Motion to Suppress
Submitted by New Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark State v. Malkin, decided November 24, 2014 by the Appellate Davison does not concern an ordinary narcotics transaction. But it does examine classic 4th Amendment search and seizure issues of law that are important for the readers of this blog to understand. The 4th Amendment reads:…
Read MoreSummary of NJ Bill Outlining Access to Data Devices (‘Black Boxes’) of Cars
Submitted by New Jersey Vehicle Accident Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark Most people have heard of a ‘black box’ associated with major airlines when they crash. Rescue teams tirelessly search for the black box in order to find details such as the flight path, altitude, and time of impact. The same concept has been applied to vehicles…
Read MoreInformant vs. Lawfully Located Police Officer in a Common Area of an Apartment Complex
State of New Jersey versus Dawson Submitted by New Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark See previously posted review of New Jersey Versus Dawson: State versus Dawson – Standard of Review for a Motion to Suppress for the Trial Court The Issue reviewed in this Blog from this case is the use of an anonymous call and…
Read MoreState versus Dawson – Standard of Review for a Motion to Suppress for the Trial Court
State of New Jersey versus Dawson – Submitted by New Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark We begin our analysis mindful of the applicable standard of review with respect to factual findings. In reviewing a grant or denial of a motion to suppress, we are bound to uphold factual findings, supported by sufficient credible evidence in…
Read MoreMickens vs. Misdom – Use of Jury Verdict Review in Personal Injury Cases
Submitted by Personal Injury lawyer, Jeffrey Hark Use of Jury Verdict Review in Personal Injury Cases The Appellate Division, while reviewing the party’s arguments and submissions, addressed the use of the New Jersey Law Journal’s “Jury Verdict Review” to persuade the court that the $2.5 million dollar verdict should not shock the conscious of the court. The court commented in a footnote, “neither plaintiff nor defendants…
Read MoreMICKENS VS. MISDOM – Judge’s Comments Regarding his “Feel for the Case”
Submitted by Personal Injury lawyer, Jeffrey Hark MICKENS VS. MISDOM – Second of two issues Judge’s Comments Regarding his “Feel for the Case” The second issue in this case is the Judge’s comments regarding his “feel for the case” when he denial of defendant’s Motion for Remittiur and Motion for a New Trial. The judge…
Read MoreDenial of Defendant’s Motion for Remittitur and Motion for a New Trial
Submitted by Personal Injury lawyer, Jeffrey Hark MICKENS VS. MISDOM The issue in this case is the Judge’s denial of defendant’s Motion for Remittitur and Motion for a New Trial as a result of the significant high jury verdict. The judge denied the defendant’s motion and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s deal based…
Read MoreBurden of Proof and Summary Judgment Dismissal – Real Estate Transaction
Submitted by New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark 34-2-5430 D’Agostino v. Gesher LLC, App. Div. (per curiam) (19 pp.) In this action plaintiff is making a claim against the selling (defendant’s) bank’s broker and attorneys – alleging they interfered with plaintiff’s opportunity to enter into a contract to purchase property, The Law Division’s orders dismissing…
Read More