Balducci v. Cige, ___ N.J. ___ (2020). In this case, as discussed here, the Appellate Division invalidated a retainer agreement in an opinion reported at 456 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2018). The panel also made some broad statements about how attorneys should conduct themselves in connection with retainer agreements in contingent fee matters, such as the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-2 et seq. (“LAD”), which was at issue in the underlying action. read more
The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification in three cases. All are criminal appeals, one of which involved a published opinion of the Appellate Division. read more
State v. Faulcon, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). Judge Koblitz did not leave readers in suspense about the outcome of her opinion for the Appellate Division today. Her first sentence says “We hold that defense counsel who represented a State witness who was questioned in the investigation of a murder may not then represent the defendant in the same case.” The Appellate Division’s ruling today reversed a decision of the Law Division that had found that defense counsel’s former representation of the witness was not directly adverse and did not materially limit counsel’s ability to represent the defendant. read more
Papera v. Pennsylvania Quarried Bluestone Co., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs and defendants reached what was believed to be a settlement of their case. At plaintiffs’ request, the District Court entered a dismissal order. That order said that he case was dismissed and gave the parties 60 days to provide a settlement agreement for court approval or move to reopen the case. A minute entry, though not the order, stated that the dismissal was “without prejudice.” When the parties neither submitted a settlement agreement nor moved to reopen, the District Court closed the case. read more
Shields v. Ramslee Motors, ___ N.J. ___ (2020). The Supreme Court always seems to have a snow and ice removal case on its docket. The latest one resulted in an opinion by Justice Fernandez-Vina. All other Justices joined that opinion, except that Justice Albin concurred in part and dissented in part. read more
Pathri v. Kakarlamath, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). This was a matrimonial matter. Both spouses came to the United States from India. Shortly after plaintiff filed this suit for divorce, he moved back to India. Shortly before trial, plaintiff sought the right to testify from India by contemporaneous video transmission, because he was unable to get a visa to come to the United States to testify in person. The Family Part denied the motion because it would inhibit the judge’s ability to assess plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to appeal, and today the Appellate Division reversed in an opinion by Judge Fisher. read more
With relatively rare exceptions, stays pending appeal do not get a lot of attention in published cases. That is because decisions on applications for such stays, by their nature, are generally made quickly and without necessarily resulting in a published (or any formal written) opinion. But in Brundage v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 48 N.J. 450 (1967), decided on this date 53 years ago, the issue of a stay pending appeal was front and center. read more
reader