You're Fired!
The New Jersey Supreme Court just released its opinion in Thomas Best v. C & M Control Doors, Inc. which held that a Defendant/Employer cannot shift the burden of paying his attorney fees in a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) case even if the Plaintiff/Employee loses that portion of the case. CEPA is New Jersey’s version of the Whistleblower Law. The Act permits employees who are fired after complaining that their employer was breaking the law, to sue and have the employer pay them their damages. The law also allows the court to require the employer to pay the employees attorneys fees. In Best, the employee was able to prove that the employer did not pay him the prevailing wage under the Prevailing Wage Act law but failed to show that he was fired because he complained about his wages. The employer tried to make the employee pay its attorneys fee under CEPA. The New Jersey Supreme Court said that a CEPA plaintiff does not have to pay attorneys fees when they lose. Clearly, the law was designed to protect the employee and encourage the employee to complain about illegal behavior. The Court’s decision furthers the intent of the statute.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
Personal Injury- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
This year we have seen an onslaught of ethics cases targeting municipal court judges. Hon. James Newman was admonished because he advised the defendant that he had a conflict and another judge would have to hear the matter. Then Judge Newman arraigned the defendant (which is a ministerial procedure which if often waived by an attorney). Despite the fact that Judge Newman recused himself and nothing he did in the arraignment was improper, he was targeted. The hunt continues and now the New Jersey Supreme Court will hear oral argument in State v. Terence McCabe. The issue is whether the municipal judge was required to recuse himself in this DWI matter because he and defendant’s counsel represented adverse parties in an unrelated matter in the Superior Court, Chancery Division? Municipal Court Judgeships are part-time positions. If part-time judges truly present ethical dilemmas because their private practice interferes with their role as a judge, then require the judges to be full time. If the Court is going to burn these judges at the stake, they may find that there is a short supply of willing candidates!
Whiplash is the physical explanation of what happens to your head and neck when you are involved in a car accident. While the term is thrown around lightly, the impact on injured motorist can have a devastating life long impact. Some victims are left with brain injuries and/or neck injuries.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
The “dog bite” statute states:
The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.
N.J.S.A. 4:19-16
On January 10, 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey said police need a warrant to search a vehicle unless they obtain the driver’s consent or demonstrate exigent circumstances. State v. Eckel, 185 NJ 523 (2006). Two and one half (2 1/2) years later the United States Supreme Court extended this legal principle to the rest of the United States pursuant to the United States Constitution. Arizona v.. Rodney Joseph Gant, 556 U. S. ____ (2009). Despite the law, it is common practice for the New Jersey State Police and local police departments to violate the law and search vehicles without a warrant. So if you are asked if you will let police search your car, just say NO!
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
In Joan Marino v. Larry L. Marino et al. the New Jersey Supreme Court said that Joan Marino could not dig up her estranged husband’s body and have it buried with her family. The decedent failed to leave any specific instructions as to where he wished to be buried. In his will he apointed his adult son as executor who opted to have him buired with his mother. Joan said she did not want to buried with the decedent’s family. It appeared that she didn’t get the point. So, Joan and her husband parted at death with a little help from Justice Helen Hoens and the rest of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation ! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Yes.
New Jersey Courts have express statutory authority to modify alimony and support agreements.
The equitable power of the courts to modify alimony and support orders at any time is specifically recognized by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23:
Pending any matrimonial action brought in this State or elsewhere, or after judgment of divorce or maintenance, whether obtained in this State or elsewhere, the court may make such order as to the alimony or maintenance of the parties, and also as to the care, custody, education and maintenance of the children, or any of them, as the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case shall render fit, reasonable and just, and require reasonable security for the due observance of such orders. * * * Orders so made may be revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require.
As a result of this judicial authority, alimony and support orders define only the present obligations of the former spouses. Those duties are always subject to review and modification on a showing of “changed circumstances.”
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation ! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Interestingly, a Court can required a divorced parent to pay for their child’s college. The Court is guided by the following factors:
(1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education; (2) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (8) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)
It is true but the the amendment is intended to encourage the intervention of emergency rescue personnel in instances where intoxication has resulted in illness.
The governor’s has signed into law an amendment to NJSA 2C:33-15 that will provide statutory immunity to certain individuals who consume alcoholic beverages while under the legal age to do so. NJSA 2C:33-15 generally prohibits either the consumption or possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under the age of 21. The offense is a disorderly persons’ offense and carries a minimum fine of $500. Conviction also requires a six-month suspension of driving privileges when the offense occurs in a motor vehicle. Under the amendment that goes into effect today, a statutory immunity will apply when:
(1) one of the underage persons called 9-1-1 and reported that another underage person was in need of medical assistance due to alcohol consumption;
(2) the underage person who called 9-1-1 and, if applicable, one or two other persons acting in concert with the underage person who called 9-1-1 provided each of their names to the 9-1-1 operator;
(3) the underage person was the first person to make the 9-1-1 report; and
(4) the underage person and, if applicable, one or two other persons acting in concert with the underage person who made the 9-1-1 call remained on the scene with the person under the legal age in need of medical assistance until assistance arrived and cooperated with medical assistance and law enforcement personnel on the scene.
The underage person who received medical assistance also shall [also] be immune from prosecution under NJSA 2C:33-15..
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation ! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
New Jersey’s collateral-source statute,
Recent Comments