By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
As summer is about to (unofficially) begin, a timely post about mixing drinking, dancing, and pools. (Spoiler alert: It usually doesn’t turn out great.) As a side note, in the 1990’s I occasionally
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
When the history of arbitration agreements in New Jersey is written – OK, maybe that is an “if” more than a “when” – it will owe a great debt to trampoline parks. Over
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
Just before the pandemic turned nearly all New Jersey courtrooms virtual, the Appellate Division issued its decision in Pathri v. Kakarlamath, which dealt with the standards trial courts should use to assess
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
It is not often that my fondness for both hip hop and interesting legal decisions collide, but the Appellate Division’s recent decision in Morgan v. Maxwell is one such occasion. The lead defendant
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
It has become a staple of teen/tween movies: Younger sibling has the same teacher as older sibling. Younger sibling hands in the same paper that older sibling used for that teacher a few
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
It has become a staple of teen/tween movies: Younger sibling has the same teacher as older sibling. Younger sibling hands in the same paper that older sibling used for that teacher a few
By: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
There may come a day when the law regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements is so well settled that courts no longer have to deal with the issue, but that day has not
by: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
The Appellate Division recently invoked the great Inigo Montoya in a decision on New Jersey’s law against “operating a vehicle while under the influence.” (For those who don’t know Inigo Montoya from The
by: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
In what has become more and more common in recent years, a New Jersey court recently had to decide whether to allow a plaintiff to serve a defendant over Facebook rather than in
by: Peter J. Gallagher (LinkedIn)
In Pathri v. Kakarlamath, the issue before the court was whether a witness could testify via contemporaneous video transmission in a divorce trial. The trial court denied the witness’s request to do
