New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

--> In an opinion issued on July 31, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared that a pet owner is not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress caused by witnessing the traumatic death of her dog.  Joyce McDougall v. Charlot Lamm (A-99-10) (067436) . The facts are relatively straightforward.  On June 7, 2007, plaintiff Joyce McDougall was walking her dog when a large dog belonging to defendant Charlot Lamm ran out, grabbed McDougall's dog by the neck, and picked it up and shook it several times before dropping it, causing the death of her dog.  McDougall bought the dog as a puppy for $200 in 1997, and believed a new puppy would cost $1,395. At the trial level McDougall described her pet as a “friendly, lively, energetic dog” that loved children and was capable of performing numerous tricks.  McDougall testified that the dog was very happy to see her when she came home, slept in a bed near hers, and was with her much of the time.  McDougall a

In an important decision that provides guidelines for retiring judges seeking future employment in the legal profession, on September 24, 2008 the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that a new trial must be conducted because of the appearance of impropriety created by a then soon-to-be retiring Chancery Court trial judge who, before the case had been concluded, began negotiating employment with an attorney appearing before him whose firm represented one of the litigants in the same case. DeNike v. Cupo (A-61-07, September 24, 2008). In so ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court (Appellate Division) which had determined that the trial judge's conduct, although inappropriate, did not influence the outcome of the case because the trial judge already had issued his substantive rulings in several written opinions and that his remaining functions as the presiding judge in this case were "ministerial." The NJ Supreme Court concluded that the

On June 4, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Romagnola v. Gillispie, Inc. (A-57-07), held that a litigant who complied with a procedural court rule that was subsequently amended was entitled to enforce the rule as it existed pre-amendment. The plaintiff in this case availed himself of the offer of judgment rule, R. 4:58-2, which allows a litigant to recover his/her counsel fees if the litigant offers to accept a judgment for a specific amount, the defendant rejects the offer, and the litigant prevails at trial. Prior to September 1, 2004, to trigger an award of counsel fees R. 4:58-2 required that the litigant obtain a money judgment for a sum "as least as favorable as the rejected offer." On September 1, 2004, R. 4:58-2 was amended to increase the money judgment requirement to be "an amount that is 120% of the offer or more." In 2002 plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract and other related claims. The parties engaged in extensive pretrial discover