State v. Smith, ___ N.J. ___ (2022). Here is how Justice Solomon began his opinion for a unanimous Court in this case today: “N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 prohibits operation of a vehicle with any ‘non-transparent material’ on the front windshield or front side windows. Although the statute predates automotive window tinting, it commonly serves as the statutory basis for tinted window citations. See State v. Cohen, 347 N.J. Super. 375, 379-81 (App. Div. 2002). In this appeal, the Court considers whether a purported violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 based on tinted windows justified an...

Allen v. Ollie’s Bargain Store, Inc., ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. 2022). This blog has reported on several Third Circuit cases in which a unanimous panel opinion was accompanied by a concurrence signed by all three judges (here and here), or by two out of three of those judges (here), including the author of the panel opinion. Last Friday, however, Judge Porter wrote both a class certification opinion for a unanimous panel and a concurring opinion that addressed an issue that the panel decision declined to reach. This was an Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) case....

Sipko v. Koger, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2022). This is the second time that this intra-family business divorce case came before the Supreme Court. The first iteration, which dates back to 2013, was discussed here. Today’s decision, written by Justice Pierre-Louis for a 5-0 Supreme Court (Justice Patterson recused in this case), addressed whether a marketability discount should have been applied in valuing plaintiff’s interest in the businesses. A marketability discount, Justice Pierre-Louis explained, “reflect[s] the decreased worth of shares of stock in a closely held...