The Supreme Court announced today the addition to three more cases to its docket.  The first of those appeals comes from a published opinion of the Appellate Division.  Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman, 447 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2016), discussed here.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “In this defamation action, did posting an article on a website with minor changes from

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in two more appeals.  One case involves unemployment benefits, a subject that the Court visits only occasionally.  The other is a criminal appeal.

The unemployment matter is Ardan v. Board of Review.  The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Was this individual disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she left her employment at Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc. without good cause attributable to the work?”  In a

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three more cases.  In Granata v. Broderick, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Among other issues, can an attorney’s pledge of anticipated counsel fees be considered a security interest under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code?  The Appellate Division answered “yes” in an opinion by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  That opinion observed that this was “an issue of first impression in New Jersey,̶