Tag Archives: Joshua A. Heines

MMA Attorneys Named as 2018 Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars

Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn is pleased to announce the selection of six of its attorneys to the 2018 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Elliott AbrutynJoseph DeDonatoLeonard C. LeichtMeredith Kaplan Stoma and Shaji M. Eapen were selected as Super Lawyers.

In addition, Joshua A. Heines was selected as Super Lawyers Rising Star.

Thomson Reuters issues the Supers Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. A description of the selection methodology is located here. No aspect of these advertisements has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

MMA Attorneys Named as 2017 Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars

Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn is pleased to announce the selection of six of its attorneys to the 2017 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Elliott AbrutynJoseph DeDonatoLeonard C. LeichtMeredith Kaplan Stoma and Shaji M. Eapen were selected as Super Lawyers.

In addition, Joshua A. Heines was selected as Super Lawyers Rising Star.

Thomson Reuters issues the Supers Lawyers and Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. A description of the selection methodology is located here. No aspect of these advertisements has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

MMA Successfully Defends Appeal for Razor USA, LLC

Robert J. Machi and Joshua A. Heines successfully defended an appeal before the New Jersey Appellate Division on behalf of Razor USA, LLC. In Vann v. Toys R UsPlaintiffs appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their claims against Razor in a products liability action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Order finding that Plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate expert opinion in support of their design defect claim because their expert failed to present an opinion substantiated by empirical evidence that the number of injuries avoided by adopting his alternative design would be greater than the corresponding number of injuries sustained as a result of such adoption. Moreover, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiffs had abandoned their failure to warn claim.