Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tort Reform in New Jersey
Editor's Note: As the authors explained in Part One of this article, like many other states, New Jersey has instituted tort reform measures aimed at reducing the incidence of frivolous lawsuits and the costs of practicing medicine. These changes in the law have had unintended consequences, however, often making the prosecution of a medical malpractice claims so complicated that only specialist attorneys can handle them.
It used to be that if a proposed medical expert had the qualifications and was credentialed to do the same procedure or perform the interpretation that was being criticized and evaluated, that affiant was qualified to give expert testimony.
However, this common sense interpretation ' one that long pre-existed the Affidavit of Merit Statute (AOM) N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 et seq. ' was subsequently eviscerated by legislative fiat. In a daring and yet unresolved challenge to the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the legislature promulgated a new statute with respect to the qualification of experts that was made applicable to all testifying experts at trial and to those who submitted the requisite AOM. Article 6, ' 2, '3 of the New Jersey Constitution vested the New Jersey Court with rule-making power. That paragraph provides in relevant part: “The Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and, subject to the law, that practice and procedure in all such courts.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?