The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four more cases. In three of those appeals, the Court granted petitions for certification. In the fourth case, the Court granted certification and leave to appeal. Three of the appeals involve published opinions of three-judge panels of the Appellate Division. In The Plastic Surgery Center, PA v. Malouf Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., discussed here, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Does the two-year statute of limitations, applicable to claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act, apply...

Feuer v. Merck & Co., Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2019). As discussed here, the Appellate Division, in an opinion by Judge Ostrer that was reported at 455 N.J. Super. 69 (App. Div. 2019), affirmed (after de novo review of the legal issues involved) a ruling of the Chancery Division that had ruled against plaintiff, a Merck shareholder, in his demand to review various Merck documents. Plaintiff had invoked both N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28 and the common law. Today, in a 6-0 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed based on Judge Ostrer’s opinion. In essence, the Appellate Division concluded that...

State in the Interest of D.M., ___ N.J. ___ (2019). In this juvenile delinquency case, neither the State nor defendant sought oral argument in the Appellate Division. The State, the respondent in that court, explained that it believed the issues raised by defendant on appeal of the Family Part’s finding of delinquency by endangering the welfare of a child were governed by settled law. However, the Appellate Division sua sponte directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on a new issue: ““whether the lack of a finding of penetration or coercion undermines the delinquency...