Jury Service Reform: S.B. 240 (2005); Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-10.1; Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-2; Amended N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-5-3.
Provides for: automatic postponement, allowing summoned jurors to reschedule service
Provides for: automatic postponement, allowing summoned jurors to reschedule service within six months of the original date; small business protections, allowing jurors who work for employers with fewer than five employees to postpone service if another employee is summoned within the same time period; leave time protection; and an expansion of juror source lists to include income tax filers. The legislation includes a hardship standard, defining that an excused juror must demonstrate that participating in their service would (1) be required to abandon another person under the person’s care or supervision due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining an appropriate substitute caregiver during the period of jury service; (2) incur costs that would have a substantial adverse impact on the payment of necessary daily living expenses of the person or the person’s dependent; or (3) suffer physical hardship that would result in illness or disease. Hardship would not exist solely because a prospective juror will be absent from employment.
New Poll Finds Strong Bipartisan Support for Government Action vs. Litigation When it Comes to Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic
While COVID-19 relief efforts stall in Congress, public support for aid to small businesses and others impacted by the pandemic remains high. According to a new survey released today by […]
Missouri Supreme Court declines to review billion-dollar award against Johnson & Johnson baby powder
Juliette Fairley of the St. Louis Record reports on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision not to review a $2 billion verdict.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce penned an op-ed for Law360 on the surge of COVID-19-related lawsuits targeting the insurance industry.
ATRA praises the passage of HB 6030 in Michigan, enacting COVID-19 liability protections.
ATRA’s statement on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Hammons v. Ethicon to allow an out-of-state lawsuit to continue, openly defying SCOTUS precedent.