State Farm office in Downtown Baltimore, Aug. 20, 2020. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM State Farm Appeal Clarifies What Should Happen if Verdict Suggests Jury Was Confused
A "trial court may not mold a jury verdict according to its perception of the jury's view. A verdict may be molded in consonance with the plainly manifested intention of the jury," the appeals court said.
April 26, 2021 at 03:47 PM
4 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court ruling sheds light on the proper judicial response when a jury returns a verdict that is riddled with inconsistencies.
This content has been archived.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 All
Turning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute read
Title Insurance Agency on Hot Seat Over Homebuyer Fees, Alleged Kickbacks
3 minute read
NJ Justices Mull Insurer's Duty to Defend Employer's Negligence Claim in Workers' Comp Dispute
6 minute read
Facing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Irell & Manella have stepped in to defend Foresight Diagnostics in a pending trade secrets lawsuit. The action, which is sealed, was filed Aug. 29 in California Northern District Court by Richards, Layton & Finger and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee, is 5:24-cv-06117, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al v. Foresight Diagnostics Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
David A. Robinson, John F. Wood and Brendan H. Connors from Holland & Knight and attorneys from Proskauer Rose have entered appearances for Scientific Drilling International, S. Westley Shedd, Pamela Pierce and other defendants, respectively, in a pending shareholder lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 29 in California Central District Court by Umhofer, Mitchell & King on behalf of Matthew D. Van Steenwyk and Gretchen M. Van Steenwyk-Marsh. The suit accuses the controlling shareholder of Scientific Drilling of self-dealing. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, is 2:24-cv-07401, Matthew D. Van Steenwyk et al v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk et al.
Who Got The Work
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete partners Laura A. Balson and Ashley L. Orler have entered appearances for Avfuel Corporation in a pending data breach class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, centers on a 2024 cyberattack that allegedly exposed the personally identifying and private data of 'potentially billions of individuals.' The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, is 2:24-cv-12274, Clark III v. Avfuel Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Stephanie Lamerce of Duane Morris has entered an appearance for MillerKnoll, the Michigan-based furniture company formerly known as Herman Miller, in a pending website accessibility class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Stein Saks, contends that the defendant's website is inaccessible to screen readers and denies full access to blind and visually-impaired individuals. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak, is 1:24-cv-06106, Hernandez v. Millerknoll, Inc.
Who Got The Work
General Motors has turned to attorney Nancy D. Green of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey to defend a pending breach-of-warranty lawsuit. The case, for claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, was filed Aug. 30 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by the Lemon Law Group Partners on behalf of the purchaser of a new 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 vehicle. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl, is 5:24-cv-04595, Fey v General Motors LLC.
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
