FAMILY LAW
In this special supplement: When does a spouse's online "venting" about marital woes rise to the level of harassment? What is the standard for relocating with a child within the state of New Jersey? What should you do if you believe your client is mentally ill?
January 20, 2020 at 10:00 AM
2 minute read
Access the digital edition here.
Social Media Tort Claims in Divorce: Targeted Harassment, or Just Venting? Civil remedies related to bad behavior on social media, including proving damages in related marital tort claims, continue to tread in uncertain waters. But when a vindictive spouse's problematic actions on social media rise to the level of criminal behavior, New Jersey has some of the strictest laws on the books. By Bari Weinberger
When It's Time to Move: The Standard for Relocation in New Jersey Considering that both interstate and intrastate relocation cases are now assessed under the same best-interest standard, it is interesting that the burden still shifts, somewhat arbitrarily, depending on whether the move is within New Jersey or across the state line. By Brian P. McCann and Kristen E. Marinaccio
Rules and Procedures When You're Concerned About Your Client's Mental Health In seeking to protect the client's best interests pursuant to RPC 1.14(b), the attorney or the court may consider whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem or general guardian is appropriate, depending upon the degree to which the client is believed to have diminished capacity. By Tracy Julian
Misconceptions and Benefits of Family Law Mediation Mediation provides divorcing spouses and separating parents with the opportunity to take control of their future by investing their time and energy in resolving these issues without the necessity of litigation. By Lynelle A. Gleason
Financial Abuse in Divorce Cases: What It Is and Why It Matters One type of abuse often begets another in a vicious cycle ultimately resulting in the survivor feeling powerless and trapped in the relationship. By Kevin Segler
The Burden of Proof and Presumptions in NY Matrimonial Actions An attorney preparing for the trial of a matrimonial action in New York must know all of the applicable presumptions and be prepared to meet her burden of proof on each issue. By Joel R. Brandes
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250