On this date in 1983, the Supreme Court decided In re Vincenti, 92 N.J. 591 (1983).  As noted here, this is a morbidly entertaining disciplinary opinion involving a practitioner who was the subject of discipline multiple times.  The Court’s per curiam opinion in this case lays out a virtual catalog of ways in which no reputable attorney should conduct himself or herself.

There is too much to recount fully in this blog post, and readers are strongly urged to read the whole opinion. 

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

New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. E.L., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018).  Courts often give public entity parties more leeway in complying with rules, court orders, and the like than private parties are given.  Sometimes Court Rules themselves give preference to public agencies, as is so, for example, of Rule 2:9-6(b), which exempts the State, its political subdivisions, and “any of their respective officers or agencies” fro