Skip to main content



Grinspec, Inc. v. Lance

EMPLOYMENT; NON-COMPETITION—When an employee is fired shortly after executing a non-compete amendment to an existing employment agreement, the amendment may lack sufficient consideration to be enforceable or if it works a hardship on the employment, it may not be enforceable.

All Phase Employment, Inc. v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS—Where an employment contract unreasonably restricts an employee from obtaining future employment, it is unenforceable, such as when a temporary employment agency tries to bar former employees from signing up with a competing agency.

Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; DISSATISFACTION—Unless an employment contract provides for an objective standard, dissatisfaction clauses are judged on a subjective standard and a court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the employer.

RIA International, LLC v. Siegel

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; CONFIDENTIALITY—New Jersey law provides protection to the customer lists of service businesses as trade secrets, but for other businesses a former employee’s use of mere knowledge of those customers with whom the employee dealt may not rise to the level of use of confidential information.

Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Narduzzi

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; ARBITRATION—Where an employer requires its employees to sign a quasi-employment agreement with an affiliated, but unrelated company, and that agreement contains a mandatory arbitration provision, the employer will be bound to arbitrate disputes arising out of its own employment agreement with those same employees.

Carino v. Allstate Financial Services, LLC

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; ARBITRATION—If a job applicant submits, as part of the job application, a form that calls for arbitration of all disputes for which the employer is obligated to arbitrate, the applicant is bound to the arbitration agreement even if never hired.

Chrin v. Cambridge Hydrodynamics, Inc.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE—Absent a contract or other promise, an employee is not entitled to be compensated for unused vacation time upon termination.

Hutt & Schimanowitz, P.C. v. Tanzman

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITIES—A person who provides credit to one spouse in a business context cannot assume that the financial resources of the other spouse are available for payment of the debt.

Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C.

DEBTOR-CREDITOR; FRAUD—Although the tort of “creditor fraud” is not yet recognized in New Jersey, it is not necessary to show a classic case of legal fraud when it is otherwise demonstrated that actions have been taken for the purpose of defrauding a creditor.

Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank v. Hussein

CREDIT CARDS—If a cardholder can’t show that a particular brochure is applicable to the cardholder’s account, then the arbitration provision set forth in the brochure will not trump a litigation provision in the cardholder agreement itself.

Page 520 of 533 pages « First  < 518 519 520 521 522 >  Last »

MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com