Victory for the Children’s Justice Clinic

Prof. Meredith L. Schalick has announced that Prof. Sandra Simkins and the Children’s Justice Clinic have succeeded in invalidating a regulation that unconstitutionally denied due process to a client in the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC).  The regulation had permitted the JJC to transfer a developmentally disabled youth from a juvenile facility to an adult prison shortly after his 18th birthday. While the court recognized that the JJC has the right to transfer youths between juvenile facilities without review, the transfer to an adult prison governed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) will now require:

“At a minimum, before a juvenile can be transferred to custody of the DOC, there must be written notice of the proposed transfer and the supporting factual basis, an impartial decision maker, an opportunity to be heard and to present opposition, some form of representation, and written findings of fact supporting a decision to proceed with the transfer.”  (p. 25)

Full text of the opinion can be found here (via the NJ Judiciary).

Written by CDS.


Law Faculty Member (and Jurist) in the News: Appellate Division Hands Down Significant Ruling on Damages.

Several years ago, Plaintiffs from around the country filed products liability suits in New Jersey state courts against local pharmaceutical manufacturer Hoffmann-La Roche.    Hoffmann-La Roche was the maker of Accutane, a drug used to treat severe acne.  This drug has since been discontinued in the wake of allegations that the drug caused gastrointestinal harm, and other medical complications.  The case before the New Jersey Appellate Division, Kendall v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., No. A-2633-08, focused on three Florida residents who were previously awarded compensatory damages totaling nearly $12 million.

The Appellate Division Judges, including Rutgers School of Law-Camden professor Hon. Jack Sabatino, rendered a decision based on the controlling Florida law of proximate causation that “entitled [] La Roche [] to judgment as a matter of law” (New Jersey Law Journal, 206 N.J.L.J. 554, Vol. 209 No.7).  The application of Florida’s proximate causation law was based on several factors: where the plaintiffs live, where they were prescribed the drug, where they took the drug, and where they suffered any resulting harm—Florida.

For those of you interested in reading the full article in the New Jersey Law Journal, please stop by the Law Library Circulation Desk and request the August 13, 2012 (Vol. 209 No. 7) edition.

Written by CDS.