TestDear Ask the Attorney: I am currently doing business under my LLC name which is registered in New Jersey. However, after 10 years in business, I am restructuring my business offerings and want to offer other services and brand these services under a different business name. Do I have to […]
On July 25, 2013, my mentor (and former boss), Judge Sabatino decided State v. Wright, a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case with the “third-party intervention” doctrine.
It is no secret that divorcing your spouse can be expensive. Often, the cost of a divorce includes more than just your attorney’s fees. It can also include expert fees, court costs, and the like. Experts are frequently used to assist the parties and/or the Court in evaluating assets, determining a party’s earning potential and determining custody and/or parenting time issues.
Cases like the one I am about to describe highlight the need for good legal representation.
In State v. Samander S. Dabas , a case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 30, 2013, the Court held that a prosecutor’s office violated its post-indictment discovery obligations under Rule 3:13-3, when its investigator destroyed his notes of a two-hour pre-interview of defendant. The State’s error resulted in a reversal of the Defendant’s (Mr. Dabas) conviction.