Two weeks ago, when the New Jersey Supreme Court repealed its five-year-old precedent that said trial judges could use their “feel of the case” to determine whether awards in civil cases could be reduced or increased, there was an almost audible sigh of relief from the plaintiffs bar and a begrudging shrug of acceptance from defense attorneys.
Plaintiffs lawyers had argued that the doctrine, enacted in 2011 by a bare 3-2 majority in He v. Miller, was being used more often by trial judges to slash jury verdicts in cases involving products liability, employment discrimination, whistleblowers, corporate financial fraud and consumer fraud.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
