A case argued Tuesday at the state Supreme Court is testing whether a plaintiff should be held responsible if her lawyer blows the 90-day notice period mandated in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act for suits against public entities.
September 25, 2012 at 05:50 PM
1 minute read
A case argued Tuesday at the state Supreme Court is testing whether a plaintiff should be held responsible if her lawyer blows the 90-day notice period mandated in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act for suits against public entities.
Late filings can be excused in cases of “extraordinary circumstances,” and the question in D.D. v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, A-29/30-11, is whether a lawyer’s defalcation meets that standard.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
