The Supreme Court announced late today that it has granted certification in In re Application for Permit to Carry a Handgun of Calvin Carlstrom.  The question presented on that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Among other issues, was petitioner entitled to a hearing on his application for a permit to carry a handgun?”  The Law Division denied the applicant, a security guard for AMC Movie Theaters, a permit to carry a gun in that capacity.  There was no hearing in that court.  A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion, rebuffing the applicant’s arguments under the Second Amendment, the separation of powers, and due process.  Now the Supreme Court will take its turn. read more

Chief justice Rabner was the guest speaker at last night’s NJSBA Appellate Practice Committee meeting.  He was aware that Judge Vernoia spoke at a previous meeting about appellate briefing, as reported here.  So he chose to focus his remarks on oral argument in the Supreme Court.  Though some of his points were specific to the Supreme Court, others apply to appellate oral arguments generally.  Here are some of the highlights of his lengthy, well-received remarks, after which he took questions. read more

On March 15, 2006, the Supreme Court decided Perez v. Rent-A-Center, 186 N.J. 188 (2006).  By a 6-1 vote, with Justice Rivera-Soto issuing a partial dissent, the Court held in an opinion by Justice Long that “rent-to-own” contracts are subject to the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 et seq. (“RISA”), to the interest rate limitation contained in the criminal usury statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-19, and to the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. (“CFA”).  The Court thereby reversed the decisions of the Law Division and the Appellate Division that had granted summary judgment against plaintiff and the putative class. read more

Today, the Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in nine more cases.  That is many more cases than are usually accepted for review at one time, though it has been 30 days since the Court last announced grants of review.  Six of the cases involve grants of certification, two are before the Court on leave to appeal granted, and one as a result of a dissent in the Appellate Division.  Here are the cases that the Court will consider: read more

Yesterday, the Senate voted 54-43 to confirm Paul Matey to a seat on the Third Circuit.  The vote largely followed party lines, with Senator Joe Manchin (D- WV) the only Democrat to vote in favor of the nomination.  The Senate deviated (and not for the first time under the current Administration) from what had been its normal practice of proceeding only with the consent of the nominee’s home state Senators.  Both New Jersey Senators Menendez and Booker opposed the nomination. read more

Komis v. Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2019).  This opinion by Judge Scirica today affirmed the result of a jury trial in this Title VII retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment case.  Judge Scirica encapsulated virtually the entire ruling of the panel in the second paragraph of his opinion: read more

On this date in 1980, the Supreme Court decided Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214 (1980).  As stated by Justice Pashman, who wrote the majority opinion, the question there was “whether a landlord who provides inadequate security for common areas of rental premises may be liable for failing to prevent a criminal assault upon a tenant.”  The Court affirmed decisions of the Law Division and the Appellate Division that had found the landlord liable and imposed a damage award. read more

Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuoo, Hyman and Stahl, P.C., ___ N.J. ___ (2019).  In 1997, the Supreme Court decided Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424 (1997).  That decision held, among other things, that the entire controversy doctrine does not require the assertion of a legal malpractice claim in the underlying action that gives rise to that claim.  Instead, the claim does not accrue until the claimant sustains actual damage.  In so ruling, the Court abrogated its decision just two years earlier in Circle Chevrolet, Inc. v. Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 142 N.J. 280 (1995), which had produced a firestorm of controversy. read more