Credit: VectorMine / Shutterstock.comA decade ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Pinto v. Spectrum Chems. and Lab Prods., 985 A.2d 1239 (2010). In Pinto, the Supreme Court adopted a general rule—reversing its previous holding in Coleman v. Fiore Bros., 552 A.2d 141 (N.J. 1989)—that defendants may make “bundled” settlement offers, i.e., conditioning a merits settlement on a compromise or waiver of statutory prevailing party fees. But the Pinto court carved out an exception to the rule, holding that defendants could not pursue this tactic in lawsuits where the plaintiff is represented by a “public interest law firm.” Pinto, 985 A.2d 1250-51.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Benefits of a Digital Membership:
- Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
- Access to the entire ALM network of websites
- Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
- Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
- Search by a wide range of topics
*May exclude premium content
Already have an account? Sign In Now
"impact" - Google News
August 27, 2020 at 11:00PM
https://ift.tt/31wChhS
The Impact of Private Public Interest Law Firms on NJ Civil Rights Litigation | New Jersey Law Journal - Law.com
"impact" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2RIFll8
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "The Impact of Private Public Interest Law Firms on NJ Civil Rights Litigation | New Jersey Law Journal - Law.com"
Post a Comment