Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy

strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /acquisitions/www/camlaw/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/ on line 24.


Welcome to the Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy's Region in Review blog covering regional legal issues. As one of the first law journals to provide online-exclusive commentary, the blog provides fresh and dynamic perspectives on the region's emerging questions of law and policy. We are always accepting contributions that focus on current, region-centric topics. If you are interested in contributing, please email Submissions should be no longer than 3,000 words.  

-RJLPP Editorial Board

DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR SALE: Why courts should adopt the Ninth Circuit interpretation of Buckley v. Valeo that permits the regulation of organizations with “a” major purpose towards political advocacy as political action committees

By: Ryan Grosso

September 23, 2015

In a post "Citizens United" world where politics is consumed by wealth and money, should the Third Circuit embrace tougher disclosure requirements and expand the scope of the organizations which can be regulated as political action committees?

RJLPP is proud to announce...

The Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy was recently cited by the NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT on page 41 of its opinion in Department of Children & Families v. E.D.-O., __ N.J. __ (2015). We are extremely proud of the hard work of our authors and staff, both past and present.
Click to view full opinion.

New Jersey’s Answer to the Economic Loss Rule: Striking a Balance Between Public Policy Considerations in Contract and Tort Law

By: Dennis Shlionsky

August 24, 2015

The black letter economic loss rule is ostensibly straight forward: absent contractual privity, a party may not recover economic damages in tort absent a showing of a personal injury or property damage. Recent unpublished decisions in the Garden State, however, have created significant uncertainty in the law regarding the proper application of the rule, particularly in the construction law arena.

The Increasing Appeal of Private Arbitration and a Brief Look at Some of the Downside

By: Hon. L. Anthony Gibson, J.S.C. (ret.)

April 27, 2015

Choosing to opt out of traditional court controlled litigation in favor of private arbitration, although anything but new, appears to be an increasingly attractive choice to disputing parties and their attorneys. However, even in those cases that are traditionally a good fit for private arbitration there still needs to be a recognition of what one is giving up when making that choice.

2015 Symposium: New Legal Strategies to Prevent Drug Overdoses

Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy was pleased to host the 2015 Symposium: New Legal Strategies to Prevent Drug Overdoses. The editorial board would like to thank the attending speakers: Rosanne Scotti, State Director of New Jersey Drug Policy Alliance; Rebecca Ricigliano, Senior Staff Member of Attorney General Hoffman’s Office; and Harry Earle, Chief of Police of Glouster Township. 

Volume 12, Issue 2: Current Issues in Public Policy

The Editorial Board is pleased to announce the publication of Volume 12, Issue 2 of the Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy. This issue includes articles on a variety of topics such as the need for a copyright standard for characters in a series, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, a legislative solution for orphan works, the online gambling conflict between state laws and the WTO decision, and how insurance companies can mount challenges to a bank-centric designation. 

Trademark Infringement: Third Circuit Offers Guidance on Evidence Needed to Satisfy Irreparable Harm in Preliminary Injunctions

By: Heather Schubert

February 17, 2015

The Supreme Court rulings in eBay and Winter have caused the federal circuit courts to question the presumption of irreparable harm in the trademark context for a preliminary injunction. Recently, the Third Circuit ruled an inference of irreparable harm can be found from the evidence established. Does this ruling help clarify the test or further the growing circuit split?