Unsuccessful litigants sometimes try to persuade appellate courts to reconsider and amend or reverse their decisions.  Rarely does that succeed.  On this day in 1972, however, the Supreme Court, acting on new information provided not by a losing party, but by intervenors who joined the case after the Court’s initial decision, amended its original judgment in favor of the intervenors.

The case was Affiliated Distillers Brands Corp. v. Sills, 60 N.J. 342 (1972).   There, in a prior opinion reported at 56 N.J. 251 (1969), the Court had ruled that a “grandfather c

Gonzalez v. Owens Corning, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2018).  This putative class action case, brought by consumers in four states, asserted that “Oakridge” roof shingles sold by defendants (“Owens Corning”) were defective, and that defendants misrepresented the shingles’ useful life.  The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review of that ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f),

Grimes v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrections, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  This appeal, decided today, had two unusual wrinkles, apart from its substantive outcome.  First, a pro se prisoner plaintiff prevailed over a government agency.  Second, a published opinion was issued per curiam, instead of being signed.  The panel consisted of Judges Messano, Suter, and Grall.

The issue revolved around a “calling policy,” applicable to a