We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Neal Walters Ballard Spahr LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 10



Federal Court precludes defendant’s class certification expert *

USA - March 6 2013
In a rare and cautionary opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has precluded the testimony and report of an expert…

Co-authors: Michael R. Carroll.


Cy pres permitted in class action settlements, but makes approval more difficult, Third Circuit holds *

USA - February 21 2013
In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit approved the use of cy pres distributions in class action settlements…

Co-authors: Marcel S. Pratt, Jason A. Leckerman, Rowan L. Smith.


No expert needed for breach of express warranty claim—burden shifts to defense *

USA - July 27 2012
In a published opinion, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that a plaintiff need not present expert evidence to establish a prima facie case of breach of express warranty.

Co-authors: Michael R. Carroll.


New Jersey federal court denies class certification in long-running Ford MDL *

USA - February 9 2012
In a ruling that highlights the increasing difficulty plaintiffs are having in pursuing class actions when their claims are subjected to the rigorous scrutiny demanded by recent Supreme Court and appellate authority, a federal judge in New Jersey has denied a renewed motion for class certification in the long-running Ford E-350 van products litigation.

Co-authors: Darryl J. May , Michael R. Carroll.


New Jersey Supreme Court confirms but clarifies availability of contingency enhancements under New Jersey fee-shifting statutes *

USA - January 30 2012
A unanimous opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court has confirmed that contingency enhancements remain available for attorneys’ fee awards under state fee-shifting statutes, but the Court provided important guidance to trial courts regarding the limited circumstances under which significant enhancements are permitted.

Co-authors: John B. Kearney , Michael R. Carroll.


Next »